AiLinkAny

Send user-requested feedback to AiLinkAny

send_feedback

Idempotent

Submit only the feedback the user explicitly asks to send to AiLinkAny. Requires user_confirmed=true, BUG/FEATURE/OTHER, a short message and a fresh opaque 32 lowercase hex feedback_id. Reuse that ID only for the same submission after transport failure. Never automatically upload files, logs, credentials or competitor feedback; suspected secrets are rejected. At most two new submissions per 10 minutes. Account OAuth identity is authoritative and no device/subscription is required.

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": {
      "user_confirmed": "<user_confirmed>",
      "feedback_id": "<feedback_id>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`feedback_id`	Yes
`user_confirmed`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`reused`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`recipient`	Yes
`feedback_id`	Yes
`received_at`	Yes
`attachments_uploaded`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the rate limit (two new submissions per 10 minutes), the idempotency rule (reuse feedback_id only for the same submission after transport failure), secret rejection behavior, and that account OAuth identity is authoritative with no device/subscription requirement. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false rather than merely restating them.

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 consent constraint is front-loaded and almost every clause carries operational weight (rate limit, retry ID, auth source). It is dense to the point of being slightly crowded, and the credentials/competitor clause sits between two procedural rules, but there is little true filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-required-param submission tool with an output schema already documenting returns, the description covers consent, retry semantics, throttling, secret handling, and authentication prerequisites. An agent could call it correctly and handle a transport failure without consulting anything else.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: user_confirmed must be true, category is BUG/FEATURE/OTHER, feedback_id must be a fresh opaque 32 lowercase hex value with a stated reuse rule, and the message must be short. Only the 2000-character cap is left to the schema.

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 ('Submit ... feedback ... to AiLinkAny') plus the scope constraint that only user-requested feedback may be sent. No sibling tool in the catalog submits feedback, and the description makes that unique role unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly bounds when to use it ('only the feedback the user explicitly asks to send') and enumerates when not to use it ('Never automatically upload files, logs, credentials or competitor feedback'). No alternative sibling exists, so no routing to alternatives is needed.

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

All AiLinkAny 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?