Joe Speaking

Send Joe Speaking capability feedback

send_feedback

Sends an anonymous report to the Joe Speaking team about a missing tool or field, an unexpected result, an error or an unclear tool description. Use when a request could not be completed with the available tools. The report holds a short, general description of the gap and is not linked to the learner's account.

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>",
      "tried": "<tried>",
      "wouldHelp": "<wouldHelp>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	The type of gap.
`tried`	Yes	A short, general description of the request that could not be completed.
`toolName`	No	An existing tool name when relevant; unrecognized names are recorded as other.
`wouldHelp`	Yes	The capability or clarification that would have helped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / kind / description

Previous value: -"The capability gap or failure that blocked the agent."New value: +"The type of gap."

changedInput schema / properties / tried / description

Previous value: -"What the agent tried, without learner data or credentials."New value: +"A short, general description of the request that could not be completed."

changedInput schema / properties / wouldHelp / description

Previous value: -"What capability or clarification would help, without learner data."New value: +"The capability or clarification that would have helped."

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false); the description adds material context they do not carry: the report is anonymous, contains only a short general description of the gap, and is not linked to the learner's account. That privacy/non-attribution disclosure is exactly the kind of thing an agent needs before deciding to submit.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the core action plus the privacy guarantee are front-loaded ahead of the usage trigger. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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?

All four parameters are schema-documented and no output schema exists, so the description's remaining burden is the write/privacy semantics, which it covers. It does not say what happens after submission (confirmation, failure behavior, whether the agent should retry), a minor gap for a write tool.

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%, with the kind enum and the 500-character limits documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only loosely echoes the 'tried' parameter ('short, general description of the gap') and adds no format or content guidance beyond it; 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 ('Sends an anonymous report to the Joe Speaking team') and enumerates the four report categories (missing tool/field, unexpected result, error, unclear description). No sibling tool offers feedback submission, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable from fetch/search/get_* siblings.

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?

'Use when a request could not be completed with the available tools' gives a clear, actionable trigger condition. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., don't use for user account issues or as a substitute for retrying a tool), so it is strong but not fully specified.

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

All Joe Speaking 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?