Skip to main content
Glama

Local MCP

by com.local-mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Survey Respond

survey_respond
Destructive

Shows or submits the short in-product survey Local MCP assigned to this machine. Called with NO arguments it returns the pending survey and, in clients that support MCP Apps, renders it as an interactive card the user answers directly — prefer this. Do NOT invent answers — if no human gave them (you're running autonomously), call survey_skip instead.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answersNoAnswers keyed by question id. Single/scale = a value; multiple = an array.
confirmNoIgnored; kept for older clients.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
surveyNoThe pending survey (no-args call) — rendered by the MCP Apps card.
messageNo
previewNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Set true to actually record the answers. Omit/false = preview only (nothing is stored)."New value: +"Ignored; kept for older clients."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "answers"
-]New value: +[]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / survey
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "The pending survey (no-args call) — rendered by the MCP Apps card.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true to actually record the answers. Omit/false = preview only (nothing is stored).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / preview
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that calling with no args returns the pending survey, that MCP Apps clients render it as an interactive card, and that answers must come from a human — valuable behavioral context for a mutation-capable tool. It does not explain what happens after a submission is recorded (reversibility, subsequent state) despite destructiveHint=true, which is the remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact clauses with the core action and preferred mode front-loaded, the interactive-card detail second, and the safety constraint last. No filler and no repetition of the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the read-vs-submit duality plus the skip escape hatch are both covered. What's missing is what actually occurs on submission and why the tool is flagged destructive, which an agent working near a write path would want to know.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuinely useful semantic: the no-argument call is a read of the pending survey, while supplying answers is the submit path. It stays silent on the vestigial 'confirm' parameter, though the schema already labels it ignored.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('shows or submits the short in-product survey') and scopes it to the survey Local MCP assigned to this machine, which no sibling shares. It also names the sibling it is not (survey_skip), so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('no arguments ... prefer this' for interactive card clients) and an explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative tool named ('if no human gave them ... call survey_skip instead'). The autonomous-agent exclusion is exactly the kind of routing rule that prevents misuse.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Local MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources