Free feedback into webcap: message (8-4000 chars) plus optional category and the endpoint you were using. No account, rate-limited per client (60/hr). Also open to humans at GET /feedback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Your feedback text | |
| category | No | Optional category (default other) | |
| endpoint | No | Optional webcap route you were using, e.g. POST /v1/x402/capture |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the rate limit (60/hr) and that no account is needed, which is useful. However, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether feedback is stored, if there is a success/failure response, or if the submission is persistent). For a simple feedback tool this is adequate but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the core function ('Free feedback into webcap') followed by the key parameters. It wastes no words and every sentence earns its place by covering the essential usage and constraints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (3 params, 1 required), schema fully documents each parameter, and no output schema is expected for a feedback submission. The description covers the main aspects: what it does, parameters, rate limit, and an alternative feedback path. It omits details like response format, but that is minor for a fire-and-forget feedback tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by restating the message length range and optionality of category/endpoint, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The rate-limit info is unrelated to parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Free feedback into webcap') and resource (the webcap feedback channel), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on feedback submission rather than capture, analysis, or trial claims. It also lists the exact parameters (message, category, endpoint) which clarifies its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: no account required and rate-limited per client (60/hr), and it mentions an alternative human-facing GET /feedback endpoint. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for comparison, but the purpose is so distinct from the other webcap tools that usage guidance is effectively implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.