Skip to main content
Glama

Feedback actionability check

wever_feedback-actionability-check
Read-only

Agent Feedback: submit one piece of feedback on a specific piece of work, point by point: optionally the giver and the work, and each point with its id, the point as written, its tone (praise, criticism, a suggestion, a question or mixed, read from wording such as great job or confusing when left out), the specific part of the work it is about, what it says is wrong or right there, the change it states or implies, whether it is about something outside the receiver’s control, whether it presents that as the receiver’s own defect, and the ids of other points whose instruction it contradicts. The signed report gives every point as actionable, nothing_to_act_on, misplaced_blame, conflicting, unlocated, no_change or unconfirmed, with every pair of contradicting instructions, and names feedback that leaves the receiver nothing clear to act on: every point pure praise or pure complaint with no part of the work and no change named, something outside the receiver’s control presented as their defect, and two instructions in the same feedback that contradict each other; then some such points among actionable ones, a change with no part named and a criticism of a part with no change, with the fix for each. This reads whether a receiver can act on feedback, not scoring or benchmarking: grading an agent’s output against a rubric is wever_evaluation-scoring-check, and a collision between agents’ recorded actions on shared work is wever_coordination-conflict-check. Verdict feedback_unactionable, feedback_actionability_gaps, feedback_actionability_unverified or feedback_actionable. POST /api/feedback-actionability-check. Reads only the recorded feedback material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write; no feedback is sent, no party is contacted and no work is changed. Agent Feedback reads the working feedback loop on one piece of work between a giver and a receiver: it is not scoring or benchmarking (the wever_evaluation checks), not a durable standing record (the wever_reputation checks) and not how agents organize shared work (the wever_coordination checks). Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-feedback-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-feedback/.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "wever_feedback-actionability-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesEach point in one piece of feedback.
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
feedbackNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: no network request, no fetch, no money movement, no message or external write, no work changed. It also discloses pricing (0.10 USDC on Base via x402), the free-call allowance, the wallet-proof binding requirement, and the Ed25519 signed receipt.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and dense, but the description is a long, clause-heavy block. The report categorization is explained twice in consecutive sentences, and the scoring/benchmarking exclusion is repeated in the closing paragraph. It is informative but harder to parse than it needs to be.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does: it enumerates the per-point statuses, contradicting-pair output, the unactionable-feedback conditions, the among-actionable gaps with fixes, and the four possible verdicts. Auth, pricing, and receipt behavior are also covered, leaving no material gap for calling correctly.

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%, so the schema carries much of the load, but the description elaborates the nested item semantics in narrative form: tone read from wording, part-of-work vs observation vs change distinctions, outside_control vs as_defect, and contradicts as cross-referencing other point ids. This adds interpretive meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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: submitting feedback points on a piece of work and reading back an actionability report. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming wever_evaluation-scoring-check (rubric grading) and wever_coordination-conflict-check (action collisions), and reiterates the not-scoring, not-reputation, not-coordination boundaries.

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?

Clear negative guidance: this is not scoring/benchmarking, not a durable standing record, not coordination. It also names the exact sibling to use for scoring and conflict cases. The positive trigger ('reads whether a receiver can act on feedback') is present but less sharply stated than the exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources