Skip to main content
Glama

Victano: EU tenders and grant calls

by com.victano
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send feedback to the team

submit_feedback

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. The reply carries a reference id. Tell the user it reached the team; do not promise a reply or a date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gotNoFor a wrong answer: what came back instead
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), 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 (3-2000 characters)
queryNoThe query or arguments that produced it; only with the user's OK
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
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. 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"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent but non-destructive write, and the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the consent protocol (ask before sending, confirmed=true), the authored_by distinction between the agent's own observation and the user's words, and what the response contains ('reference id'). It stops short of describing failure modes or rate limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries a rule an agent needs, but the paragraph is dense and runs several ideas (when to offer, consent, field guidance, reply handling) together in one block. It is efficient for its content yet not maximally scannable.

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?

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and a consent-sensitive write, the description covers the required/optional split, the confirmation flow, the privacy boundary around the user's words, and what the caller should tell the user afterward. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 adds policy meaning the schema does not carry: which fields go with which kind, that query is only sent with the user's OK, that contact_email is only for replies, and how message relates to what. That is real added context over the schema text.

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 and resource ('Send feedback about Victano to the team that builds it') and enumerates the accepted kinds, so an agent can distinguish it from every sibling (connect_*, get_*, list_*, search_*). No sibling overlaps this purpose.

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?

Explicit when-to-offer triggers are listed (empty/wrong answer, user correction, missing workflow step, repeated manual step, unmet need), plus a restraint rule ('Offer once, in one sentence; the user's task comes first'). No alternative tool exists, and the description correctly treats this as the sole route for feedback.

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