Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

QuassLabs API

by com.quasslabs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

send_feedback

Submit free-text feedback about the API - a bug, an idea, a docs gap, a billing question, or anything else. Missing a tool? Use kind tool_request to tell us what you needed, with an optional tool_description. Tied to your key so we can follow up, but not a support-ticket SLA. Auth required; not billed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoWhat this is. Defaults to "other". Use "tool_request" when a tool you needed does not exist.other
messageYesWhat you want us to know. Up to 4000 characters.
categoryNoWhich area this concerns. Defaults to "other".
endpointNoOptional. Which /v1/* endpoint or MCP tool this is about, e.g. "/v1/ticket-lint".
severityNoOptional. Omit if not applicable.
contact_okNoOptional, defaults to false. Whether we may follow up with you about this.
tool_descriptionNoOnly with kind "tool_request": what the missing tool should do, up to 500 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write with no open-world access. The description adds context the annotations cannot: feedback is keyed to the caller's credential for follow-up, there is no support-ticket SLA, auth is required, and the call is not billed. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields, though it says nothing about response or confirmation behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the tool_request special case, then operational facts (auth, billing, SLA). Every sentence carries information. The mid-sentence dash list is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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?

With seven parameters, one required, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description covers the things an agent cannot infer: auth requirement, billing, follow-up attribution, and the tool_request flow. The remaining gap is what a successful call returns or confirms, which is a minor omission given the low complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and three parameters carry enums, so the schema already defines every field. The description only restates the tool_request/tool_description coupling, which the schema itself documents. It meets the baseline without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb (submit) and resource (free-text feedback about the API) and enumerates the kinds of content it accepts (bug, idea, docs gap, billing question). No sibling tool in the list does anything similar, so an agent can distinguish it immediately without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit routing rule for the most ambiguous case: 'Missing a tool? Use kind tool_request ... with an optional tool_description.' That is real when-to-use guidance tied to an alternative behavior. It does not, however, describe when an agent should NOT send feedback (e.g., rate limits or duplicate-submission concerns), so it stops short of a 5.

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

All QuassLabs API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources