Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Foodbe

by io.github.bleemohr
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

foodbe_feedback

Call when a Foodbe tool is missing, an answer was wrong or too thin, or a tool you need does not exist. Tell us what would help you. Returns outcome "received". The number of messages per day is limited.

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": {
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "foodbe_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional: missing_tool, wrong_answer or other.
toolNoOptional: the Foodbe tool name the feedback is about.
messageYesWhat is missing or wrong, 1 to 1000 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the return payload ('outcome "received"') and a per-day message rate limit, which are genuinely useful operational facts an agent cannot get from the structured fields. It does not state what happens to the submitted feedback afterwards or how the daily limit is counted, keeping it from a 5.

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 trigger conditions, and every clause carries information. There is minor redundancy between 'a Foodbe tool is missing' and 'a tool you need does not exist', which are essentially the same condition stated twice.

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 simple three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the definition covers the trigger conditions, the response acknowledgment, and the rate limit. The only remaining gap is that it does not say whether feedback is free-form or must reference existing tools, which is a minor omission.

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 all three parameters (kind, tool, message) are already documented with the enum values spelled out. The description adds only the generic 'Tell us what would help you' framing and no field-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear this is a feedback-submission channel for Foodbe, triggered by missing tools, wrong or thin answers, or nonexistent tools. It is plainly distinguishable from the sibling query tools, though the action verb itself ('send feedback') is only implied by phrases like 'Tell us what would help you' rather than stated outright.

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?

Three explicit trigger conditions are given: a Foodbe tool is missing, an answer was wrong or too thin, or a needed tool does not exist. That is strong when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance (e.g., not for general food questions) and no named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Foodbe 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