Bloom

Send feedback to Bloom

send_feedback

Submit user-requested feedback to Bloom engineering. Supports feedback categories including praise and reports deduplicated/rate-limited outcomes. Client identity and server version are attached automatically. No additional project scope is required.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "detail": "<detail>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	bug = something is broken. friction = it works but was needlessly hard. idea = you needed a tool or option that does not exist. docs = a description, skill, or error message misled you. praise = this worked well.
`detail`	Yes	What you were trying to do, what happened, what you expected. Bloom engineering reads these.
`branchId`	No	Only if naturally at hand — never required.
`evidence`	No	Error message, error code, or the exact args that failed. Free-form.
`toolName`	No	The Bloom tool or surface involved, e.g. 'edit_files', 'browse_frame'.
`projectId`	No	Only if naturally at hand — never required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which only declare it is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write), the description discloses that outcomes are deduplicated and rate-limited, that client identity and server version are attached automatically, and that no project scope is needed. These are meaningful behavioral facts an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The middle sentence ('Supports feedback categories including praise and reports deduplicated/rate-limited outcomes') is slightly compressed and reads awkwardly, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

With six parameters at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: the submission trigger, automatic metadata attachment, and rate-limit/dedup behavior. Only the return/confirmation behavior is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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 enum values and each field are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the note that no project scope is required, which is marginal beyond what the schema provides; 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Submit user-requested feedback to Bloom engineering') and scopes it to user-requested submissions. No sibling tool overlaps with this function, so an agent can identify it immediately.

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?

The phrase 'user-requested feedback' establishes the trigger condition (only when the user asks), and the mention of categories clarifies the supported cases. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives, but no sibling competes for this role.

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

All Bloom 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?