Damper

Reply to Feedback

reply_to_feedback

Reply to a feedback item as a team member. The reply will be visible to the customer. Send follow-up info to the feedback author by setting notifyCustomer (emails them) and optionally adding up to 3 attachments (PNG/JPEG/WebP/GIF screenshots, 3 MB each) that appear in the email and on the public feedback page.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "feedbackId": "<feedbackId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	Reply message content
`projectId`	Yes	Project ID. Use list_projects to find available project IDs.
`feedbackId`	Yes	ID of the feedback item to reply to
`attachments`	No	Screenshots to attach to the reply (max 3, 3 MB each)
`notifyCustomer`	No	Send email notification to the customer

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`author`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`createdAt`	Yes
`feedbackId`	Yes
`attachments`	No
`dashboardUrl`	No	Full dashboard URL of the affected resource

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say it is a non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds the genuinely important side effect that is not in the annotations: the reply is publicly visible to the customer, and `notifyCustomer` triggers an email while attachments surface both in the email and on the public page. It does not mention that replying twice creates two visible public replies (non-idempotency), which is the main residual gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the public-visibility fact, then the notification/attachment mechanics. The attachment parenthetical is somewhat dense but nothing is clearly wasted.

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 and every parameter is described, so the description only needs to carry behavior and consequences — which it largely does (public visibility, email, attachment placement). The missing piece is what happens on duplicate replies and any permission constraints on replying.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the 3-item/3 MB limits and allowed content types. The description's attachment details repeat the schema rather than add new semantic meaning; its only value-add (where attachments appear) is behavioral.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reply to a feedback item') plus the actor ('as a team member'), so an agent can tell it is a customer-facing reply action rather than the internal 'update_feedback'. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives a concrete usage rule: use `notifyCustomer` (and optionally attachments) when you want the author to receive follow-up info by email. That is real guidance, but there is no statement of when not to use this tool versus `update_feedback` or when to reply publicly versus note internally.

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

All Damper 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?