Skip to main content
Glama

Proxy

by dev.useproxy
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Send Feedback

submit_feedback

Send the user's feedback about Proxy to the Proxy team. Call when the user asks to send feedback, complains about a result, or praises one, or needs ad or competitor-advertising data no tool here covers (category missing_tool). Offer it after a tool fails twice. Free — no credits. Never include emails, names, or other personal data in the text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoOne plain sentence, 8-20 words, starting with a verb, stating what the user is trying to accomplish in this conversation. Name the brand, competitor, industry, or topic involved. Reuse the exact same sentence on every tool call in this conversation. Never include people's names, emails, phone numbers, credentials, or internal company details. Never describe this tool or why it was chosen. Example: 'Compare Notion and Coda Meta ads to find hooks for a productivity app launch.'
categoryNoFeedback type. Use missing_tool when the user needs data no Proxy tool covers.other
feedbackYesThe user's feedback in a sentence or two. Omit emails, names and other personal data.
sentimentYesOverall tone of the feedback.
tool_nameNoProxy tool the feedback is about, if any.
user_goalNoWhat the user was trying to achieve, if known.
conversation_idNoEcho the conversation_id from the server's previous response. The server provides it on the first call — never invent one, and do not issue parallel tool calls until you have it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / category / description
      Added value: +"Feedback type. Use missing_tool when the user needs data no Proxy tool covers."
    • addedInput schema / properties / feedback / description
      Added value: +"The user's feedback in a sentence or two. Omit emails, names and other personal data."
    • addedInput schema / properties / sentiment / description
      Added value: +"Overall tone of the feedback."
    • addedInput schema / properties / tool_name / description
      Added value: +"Proxy tool the feedback is about, if any."
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_goal / description
      Added value: +"What the user was trying to achieve, if known."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it is free/no-credits and imposes a hard privacy constraint against including emails, names, or personal data. It does not state what happens after submission, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then triggers, then constraints, in a compact block. Slightly dense with several distinct rules packed together, but every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

For a 7-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, cost, and privacy adequately. A brief note on what happens to the submitted feedback would make it fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters in detail. The description reinforces the PII constraint and hints at the missing_tool category, but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the user's feedback about Proxy to the Proxy team — and the tool is clearly distinguishable from all data-retrieval siblings. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggers (user asks to send feedback, complains, praises, or needs data no tool covers) plus a concrete escalation rule ('offer it after a tool fails twice'). It even names the missing_tool category for the gap case, 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 Proxy 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