OpenRepro ledger

Send feedback to OpenRepro (optional)

send_feedback

Optional: send short feedback about the OpenRepro ledger and this server to OpenRepro's maintainers, who read it to improve the ledger. It is stored privately with the day and these fields only, kept for 12 months and never published. It must not contain personal data, the user's own words or prompts, file contents or secrets. Links, email addresses, IP addresses, phone-like numbers and long tokens are removed on a best-effort basis only. Send it only if you have feedback about the ledger, or the user is happy for it to be sent. No other tool depends on it.

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": {
      "task_type": "<task_type>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client`	No	Optional: the assistant's or client's product name. Only names on a short list of known clients are kept; anything else is stored as "other".
`useful`	No	What in the ledger or this server helped (at most 500 characters).
`task_type`	Yes	What the ledger was being used for, in general terms.
`suggestion`	No	What would help next time (at most 500 characters).
`missing_or_wrong`	No	What was missing, wrong or hard to use (at most 500 characters).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare that it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description goes far beyond that by disclosing retention (12 months), visibility (stored privately, never published), the exact fields retained, and best-effort redaction of PII, links and tokens. It also states a hard content restriction (no personal data, prompts, file contents or secrets), which is essential for an agent deciding what to pass. The only minor omission is what the call returns, which is not covered by an output schema.

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?

Front-loads 'Optional:' and the purpose before the privacy detail, and no sentence is filler. The privacy sentence is a dense run-on packing storage, retention and non-publication into one clause chain, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 5-parameter, 1-required submission tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers consent, content limits and data handling thoroughly. It never says what a successful call returns (confirmation, ID, nothing), which is the one thing an agent cannot get from structured fields here.

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%, including per-field maxLengths and the client-name allowlist, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds the aggregate constraint that only the day and these fields are stored, but nothing per-parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 (send), resource (short feedback about the OpenRepro ledger and this server) and recipient (OpenRepro's maintainers). The closing line 'No other tool depends on it' separates it from the sibling tools, which all deal with verification and reports rather than feedback.

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 explicit when-to-use ('only if you have feedback about the ledger, or the user is happy for it to be sent') and marks the tool optional up front. The conditions are concrete enough that an agent can decide whether to call it without inference.

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

All OpenRepro ledger 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?