intentweave-mcp

submit_feedback

Submit user feedback for model improvement loop.

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": {
      "lead_id": "<lead_id>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "submit_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`rating`	Yes
`lead_id`	Yes
`campaign_id`	No
`access_token`	No
`tenant_api_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedApr 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a write action but omits side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or response behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate impact.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and is appropriately brief. It is not padded, but it sacrifices potentially valuable context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given six parameters, including auth fields, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain how feedback relates to leads/campaigns, what ratings mean, or the expected workflow, leaving critical ambiguities.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameters. With six parameters, including sensitive ones like access_token and tenant_api_key, the agent receives no help understanding what to pass. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the action 'Submit user feedback' and its purpose ('for model improvement loop'). It uses a specific verb and resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name, which is distinct enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., needing lead_id or rating), or how it relates to sibling tools like get_lead or run_campaign.

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

All intentweave-mcp 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?