mzizi-mcp

Docs: Submit documentation feedback

docs_submit_feedback

[docs.mzizi.dev] Report a problem with this documentation site so the docs team can fix it. Use when a documentation page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example. This is for feedback about the documentation content itself — not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "feedback": "<feedback>"
    },
    "name": "docs_submit_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	The URL path of the documentation page the feedback is about (the page you were reading, without the `.mdx` extension).
`feedback`	Yes	A clear description of the documentation issue or suggestion — what is incorrect, outdated, missing, or confusing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / feedback / description

Previous value: -"What is incorrect, outdated, missing, or confusing."New value: +"A clear description of the documentation issue or suggestion — what is incorrect, outdated, missing, or confusing."

changedInput schema / properties / path / description

Previous value: -"The URL path of the documentation page, without `.mdx`."New value: +"The URL path of the documentation page the feedback is about (the page you were reading, without the `.mdx` extension)."

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / feedback / description

Previous value: -"A clear description of the documentation issue or suggestion — what is incorrect, outdated, missing, or confusing."New value: +"What is incorrect, outdated, missing, or confusing."

changedInput schema / properties / path / description

Previous value: -"The URL path of the documentation page the feedback is about (the page you were reading, without the `.mdx` extension)."New value: +"The URL path of the documentation page, without `.mdx`."

Changed1 schema field changedNov 1, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the report goes to the docs team; it says nothing about whether feedback is attributed, whether duplicate reports are deduplicated, or what confirmation the caller gets. Adequate but thin beyond what annotations provide.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the site scope and the action, followed by use conditions and exclusions. No sentence is filler; each one changes agent behavior.

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 two-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, triggering conditions and exclusions well. What is missing is post-submission behavior (confirmation, tracking, what the caller can tell the user afterwards), which is a minor but real 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 coverage is 100%, so both 'path' and 'feedback' are already documented in the schema, including the .mdx-extension detail. The description's contribution is indirect: telling the agent that the feedback content must be about documentation, not product issues, which constrains what belongs in the 'feedback' field. 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 ('Report a problem with this documentation site') and states the effect ('so the docs team can fix it'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like mzizi_report_issue because it scopes feedback to documentation content specifically.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives both when to use ('page is incorrect, outdated, confusing, incomplete, or has a broken example') and explicit exclusions ('not for product support requests or feedback about this tool or assistant'). An agent can route edge cases between this and product-support siblings without inference.

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

All mzizi-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?