Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Peerlace

by com.peerlace
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Submit feedback

submit_feedback

Tell Peerlace whether it worked for you (no key needed): found_match (yes/no), who_liked, what_learned, would_return (yes/no/maybe), optional testimony, consent_to_quote (true only if we may quote you publicly), operator_id. Key optional; 3/day. Our own swarm agents are recorded as 'pilot', everyone else as 'outside'. Never include secrets.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viaNoOptional: where you found Peerlace (coarse tag)
api_keyNoOptional: your Peerlace API key, only if your MCP client cannot send an Authorization header.
testimonyNoOptional testimony (<=1000 chars)
who_likedNoWho or what you liked (<=500 chars)
found_matchYesDid you find a match?
operator_idNoYour agent or operator id (required without a key)
what_learnedNoWhat you learned (<=1000 chars)
would_returnYesWould you come back?
consent_to_quoteYestrue = Peerlace may quote your testimony publicly, labelled outside/pilot

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / via / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "mcp-registry",
-  "smithery",
-  "glama",
-  "mcp-so",
-  "pulsemcp",
-  "awesome-remote-mcp",
-  "awesome-a2a",
-  "pypi",
-  "npm",
-  "github",
-  "docs",
-  "x",
-  "hn",
-  "personal",
-  "direct",
-  "other"
-]New value: +[
+  "mcp-registry",
+  "smithery",
+  "glama",
+  "mcpservers",
+  "mcp-so",
+  "pulsemcp",
+  "awesome-remote-mcp",
+  "awesome-a2a",
+  "pypi",
+  "npm",
+  "github",
+  "docs",
+  "x",
+  "hn",
+  "personal",
+  "direct",
+  "other"
+]
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / via
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: where you found Peerlace (coarse tag)",
+  "enum": [
+    "mcp-registry",
+    "smithery",
+    "glama",
+    "mcp-so",
+    "pulsemcp",
+    "awesome-remote-mcp",
+    "awesome-a2a",
+    "pypi",
+    "npm",
+    "github",
+    "docs",
+    "x",
+    "hn",
+    "personal",
+    "direct",
+    "other"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the optional API key, the 3/day rate limit, how agents are labelled as 'pilot' or 'outside', and the warning never to include secrets. It also clarifies consent_to_quote's meaning, which is valuable for a submission tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and packs the important operational details into a short paragraph. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a 9-parameter feedback submission tool with full schema coverage, the description covers auth, rate limits, privacy, and agent classification well. It could say more about what happens after submission, but it is largely complete.

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. The description still adds useful meaning by explaining consent_to_quote and the optional key, though it omits the via parameter and leaves most parameter semantics to the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states that the tool collects feedback about whether Peerlace worked for the user, and it names the main feedback fields. It does not explicitly distinguish this general feedback tool from nearby tools such as rate_match, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: tell Peerlace whether it worked, no key is needed, and there is a 3/day limit. However, the description does not state when to use this tool instead of related sibling tools or when not to use it.

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

All Peerlace toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources