list_meta_council_feedbackADMIN ONLY: list platform-feedback reports — feedback about Meta Council itself, never a tenant's own business data — across all users for triage (requires an ADMIN_EMAILS account; everyone else gets a permission error). Filter by status, category, or severity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| severity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "text": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "text"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: ADMIN_EMAILS-only access, permission errors for others, cross-user scope, and the boundary that this is platform feedback rather than tenant business data. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It places the critical ADMIN ONLY constraint first, then the resource scope, and finally the filter capabilities, with every clause earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: admin authorization, error behavior, data domain, and filtering options. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it omits explicit mention of the limit parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning by identifying status, category, and severity as filters, and the schema supplies their enums. However, it does not mention the limit parameter at all, leaving that parameter's behavior entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource ('list platform-feedback reports'), defines the scope as feedback about Meta Council itself, and explicitly distinguishes it from tenant business data. It also signals it is the listing counterpart to submit/triage siblings, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly states the admin-only prerequisite and the failure mode for non-admins. The phrase 'for triage' provides context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for submission or triage actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.