Skip to main content
Glama

Guitar Practice Routine App — Chord Charts

by io.github.slshults
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

send_feedback

Read-onlyIdempotent

Send feedback about this chord chart server: a chord or capability you needed that its tools could not provide, a problem with a chart or a result, or praise. Only for feedback about these chord chart tools, not about other tasks. Do not include personal information about the user.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailsNoOptional longer context: what you tried, exact parameter values, the error text you saw, and any workaround you used. Omit when the summary says it all.
summaryYesOne self-contained sentence. For 'missing_capability': the capability you needed, e.g. 'No tool to delete multiple cohorts in one call.' For 'issue': the tool and the problem, e.g. 'query-trends rejects relative date ranges with an unclear error.'
sentimentNoOptional: how the experience felt overall.
tool_nameNoOptional: the existing tool this feedback is about (for 'issue' or 'praise'). Leave empty for 'missing_capability' - the point is that no tool fits.
feedback_typeYesWhat kind of feedback this is. Use 'missing_capability' when the tool you needed does not exist in the tool list - nothing failed, the capability is absent (this is the most valuable report; send it even if you found a workaround). Use 'issue' when an existing tool behaved badly: it failed, returned a confusing error, or its description or schema misled you. Use 'praise' when something worked notably well. Use 'other' for anything else.
task_completedNoOptional: whether you still completed the user's task despite the problem.
friction_pointsNoOptional: the specific moments that slowed you down, as short bullet-like sentences, quoting exact tool names, parameters, or error text.
suggested_improvementNoOptional: the concrete change that would have helped, e.g. the tool to add, the description to reword, or the error message to improve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavioral guidance: a privacy constraint ('Do not include personal information about the user') and a topical scope restriction. It still does not say what happens after submission (confirmation, storage, rate limits).

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 with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the two constraints that matter most (scope and privacy). No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 an 8-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, scope and privacy adequately. Only the post-submission behavior (confirmation or error handling) is unaddressed, which is a minor 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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already carries detailed guidance, including examples for 'summary' and the semantics of each 'feedback_type' enum value. The description's category list overlaps with the feedback_type enum rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Send feedback about this chord chart server') and enumerates the kinds of feedback accepted (missing capability, problem with a chart or result, praise). It is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling read tools (get_chord_chart_by_id/name, get_chord_of_the_day), though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear scope boundary: 'Only for feedback about these chord chart tools, not about other tasks,' which tells the agent when this tool applies and when it does not. It does not, however, mention any alternative channel or say what to do with feedback about other subjects.

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

All Guitar Practice Routine App — Chord Charts toolsInspect
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