Rightshold

Give feedback on Rightshold

submit_feedback

Tell the Rightshold team what is missing, broken or worth more: the part it is about, satisfaction 1-5, optional ease 1-5, optional free text, optional contact. No account needed. Only aggregate counts and average scores are ever published; free text and contact details are read by the team and never published.

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": {
      "topic": "<topic>",
      "satisfaction": "<satisfaction>"
    },
    "name": "submit_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ease`	No
`kind`	No	Defaults to agent.
`topic`	Yes
`contact`	No	Optional reply address
`satisfaction`	Yes	1-5
`what_would_improve`	No	Free text

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / contact / description
```
Added value: +"Optional reply address"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / satisfaction / description
```
Added value: +"1-5"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / what_would_improve / description
```
Added value: +"Free text"
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
```
First observedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. Beyond that, the description discloses key behavioral traits: no authentication required, and a data-handling policy (only aggregate counts and average scores are published; free text and contact are read by the team and never published). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

One dense sentence: purpose first, then the field list, then the privacy/no-account caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated. The middle field enumeration is slightly list-like, but it is compact overall.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, required vs optional inputs, auth requirements, and data-handling guarantees. The main omission is any indication of what happens after submission or how to interpret the result, which is minor given the output schema.

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 67%, and the description compensates well: it clarifies which fields are optional (ease, free text, contact), gives the 1-5 range for satisfaction and ease, and paraphrases topic as 'the part it is about'. The only parameter it omits is 'kind' (agent/human), which the schema itself documents with a default.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — telling the Rightshold team what is 'missing, broken or worth more' — and enumerates the payload fields (topic, satisfaction, ease, free text, contact). It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling tool, none of which collect user feedback. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, so 4 rather than 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 by the phrasing: reach for this when something is missing, broken or worth more. The pre-condition 'No account needed' is a useful eligibility hint. However, there is no statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., versus asking a question or requesting support), so guidance remains implicit.

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

All Rightshold tools Inspect

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

Need Help?