signal-bureau

send_feedback

File structured feedback with the desk: a bug, an improvement, a complaint, praise, or a question about the service itself. Free, no contact details required; limits stated up front: 5/minute, 20/day per network address (shared egress shares the allowance). A complaint that names a real defect becomes our work order — house policy — and get_feedback_status lets you watch the state move by feedbackId. Include ref (a quoteId/ticketId/orderId from your own records) to tie the report to a specific interaction. The response says honestly whether the report was durably recorded.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	A quoteId, ticketId, or orderId to tie this to (optional)
`kind`	Yes	bug \| improvement \| complaint \| praise \| question
`about`	No	Which tool/endpoint/page this concerns (optional)
`detail`	No	The full story — reproduction steps, expected vs observed (optional)
`summary`	Yes	One sentence: what happened or what you want

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels. It discloses rate limits (5/minute, 20/day per network address), the work-order policy for complaints naming real defects, and the response's honesty about durable recording. These are substantive behavioral details beyond the typical mutation description.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is five dense sentences, each adding distinct information: purpose, constraints, behavioral consequence, ref usage, and response guarantee. It is compact, non-redundant, and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, rate limits, side effects, parameter context, and response behavior. The 'honestly' clause partially addresses failure/durability, making the tool's behavior remarkably well-specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small clarification for ref ('from your own records') and re-lists the kind values, but these do not meaningfully exceed the schema's existing descriptions for any parameter.

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 'File structured feedback with the desk', a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It enumerates the accepted kinds (bug, improvement, complaint, praise, question) and distinguishes this tool from the sibling get_feedback_status by framing it as the follow-up status tracker.

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 description provides clear when-to-use context: it is for filing structured feedback, with constraints (free, no contact details, rate limits) and ref usage guidance. It explicitly names get_feedback_status for tracking, but it does not address potential overlap with siblings like ask, leaving minor ambiguity for service-related questions.

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

All signal-bureau tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function: ask is async event queries, get_answer retrieves results, get_signals and top_accelerating provide different signal views, get_entity and search_entities cover entity details and search, etc. No two tools have overlapping purposes, and descriptions clearly separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a 'get_' prefix for retrieval (13 of 21) and other clear verbs like 'ask', 'create_order', 'propose_topic', 'send_feedback'. A few use noun phrases like 'todays_brief' and 'top_accelerating', which breaks the pattern slightly but are still intuitive. Overall consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

21 tools cover the full scope of the server: exploration, querying, ordering, account management, feedback, and data records. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count feels well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major workflows: browsing signals, asking questions, getting detailed reports, ordering, providing feedback, and proposing new topics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to cancel an order or manage watched topics directly), but core operations are present and agents can handle the domain effectively.

Resources

Need Help?