Skip to main content
Glama

Victano: EU tenders and grant calls

by com.victano
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback to the team

submit_feedback

Sign-in required: call connect_start(email) and connect_verify first (free, one email) unless this connection is already signed in. Send feedback about Victano to the team that builds it: a bug, a wrong answer, missing data, a missing feature, a workflow idea, or praise. Every item is read by a person. When to offer it: an answer came back empty or wrong; the user corrected you or the result; a workflow was missing a step the user needed; the user repeats a manual step the service could do for them; the user says they need something the service does not do. Offer once, in one sentence; the user's task comes first. Ask first. Show the user what you will send and send it only after they agree. Their own words, and any client, case, company or personal detail, go only with their explicit OK; then set confirmed=true. With authored_by='agent' you may report your own observation of the service (the tool, what you expected, what came back) without asking, as long as it holds none of the user's words or confidential content. Fill kind and what (the task, and what went wrong or what is needed). For a wrong answer add expected and got. Add tool and query for context (the query only with the user's OK), severity, and contact_email only when the user wants a reply. Length: what up to 50,000 characters; expected and got up to 20,000 each; query up to 5,000; 80,000 for one item in all. A detailed analysis with context, evidence and proposals is welcome in one item; longer than that, send numbered parts (1/n, 2/n ...), each a complete item. The reply carries a reference id. Tell the user it reached the team; do not promise a reply or a date.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gotNoFor a wrong answer: what came back instead (up to 20000 characters)
kindYesOne of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), structure (how a document was divided or labelled is wrong (its sections, whose words a passage is, numbering)), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else)
toolNoThe tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly); several: comma-separated
whatNoThe task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-50000 characters)
queryNoThe query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK (up to 5000 characters)
messageNoOlder name for `what`, kept so earlier callers still work; prefer `what`
sessionNoThe `session` value the sign-in returned. Pass it on every call in this conversation, so the sign-in survives however this client handles connections; omit it when the user connected with Sign in (OAuth) or a key.
expectedNoFor a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been (up to 20000 characters)
severityNolow | normal | high | blocking (blocking: the user cannot do their work)
confirmedNotrue once the user approved sending this; required for authored_by user or agent_drafted
authored_byNouser (their words) | agent_drafted (you wrote it, they approved) | agent (your own observation)
contact_emailNoOnly if the user wants a reply: the address to reply to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Previous value: -"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else)"New value: +"One of: bug (something failed or errored), wrong_answer (an answer was returned but it was wrong or misleading), missing_data (a document, record or source the user expected is not covered), missing_feature (something the user needs that the service does not do), workflow_idea (a step, sequence or repeated manual task the service could handle), structure (how a document was divided or labelled is wrong (its sections, whose words a passage is, numbering)), praise (something that worked well and should be kept), other (anything else)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "bug",
-  "wrong_answer",
-  "missing_data",
-  "missing_feature",
-  "workflow_idea",
-  "praise",
-  "other"
-]New value: +[
+  "bug",
+  "wrong_answer",
+  "missing_data",
+  "missing_feature",
+  "workflow_idea",
+  "structure",
+  "praise",
+  "other"
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / expected / description
      Previous value: -"For a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been"New value: +"For a wrong answer: what the right answer or result would have been (up to 20000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / got / description
      Previous value: -"For a wrong answer: what came back instead"New value: +"For a wrong answer: what came back instead (up to 20000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"The query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK"New value: +"The query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK (up to 5000 characters)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / what / description
      Previous value: -"The task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-2000 characters)"New value: +"The task and what went wrong or what is needed (3-50000 characters)"
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tool / description
      Previous value: -"The tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly)"New value: +"The tool the feedback is about, if one (e.g. the tool that answered wrongly); several: comma-separated"
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide the generic write/openWorld profile; the description adds the operationally critical context: sign-in prerequisite, mandatory user consent before sending personal detail, the distinction between authored_by='agent' self-reporting and user-authored content, item length caps, and what the response contains (a reference id) and what must not be promised (a reply or date).

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?

Long (~350 words) but front-loaded with the sign-in requirement and organized into purpose, triggers, consent rules, and field guidance. It does duplicate some schema content, notably the kind enum values and the per-field character limits, which costs a point but does not bury the operative instructions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 12-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers auth flow, consent/confirmation protocol, field-level conditional guidance, size limits, and the shape of the response. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly and safely is missing.

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, but the description goes further by giving conditional guidance the schema does not: fill kind and what, add expected and got specifically for wrong answers, and only set confirmed=true after explicit approval, which ties the confirmed/authored_by flags together semantically.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send feedback about Victano to the team that builds it') and enumerates the exact scope (bug, wrong answer, missing data, missing feature, workflow idea, praise). An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling tools like notifications or search_opportunities because the description frames it as outbound communication to the builders.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Contains an explicit 'When to offer it' list of trigger conditions (empty/wrong answer, user correction, missing workflow step, repeated manual step, unmet need) plus behavioral constraints ('Offer once, in one sentence', 'Ask first'). It also states the prerequisite path via connect_start/connect_verify, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All Victano: EU tenders and grant calls toolsInspect
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