add_ballot_feedbackRecord a member's comment about the current ballot (optionally about one candidate), e.g. relayed from a text message. Members can also do this themselves on their vote page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | Yes | ||
| week_id | No | ||
| recipe_id | No | ||
| member_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool persists a comment, scopes it to the current ballot, and optionally to one candidate. However, it does not mention whether repeated calls create duplicates, whether existing feedback is overwritten, or any permissions or response behavior.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the core action and optional candidate detail, followed by a helpful context note about member self-service. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
For a simple feedback-recording tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose, optionality, and a typical scenario. It stops short of explaining duplicate/overwrite behavior, how week_id relates to the current ballot, or whether recipe_id must be an active candidate.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description partially compensates: 'member's comment' maps to member_name and comment, and 'optionally about one candidate' maps to recipe_id. However, week_id is not explained, and the phrase 'current ballot' only indirectly suggests why week_id is optional.
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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and precise objects: a member's comment, the current ballot, and optionally a candidate. It also gives a concrete example and distinguishes itself from voting tools by clarifying this is about comments/feedback, not ballots or votes.
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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent needs to record a member's comment, such as one relayed from a text message, and notes that members can also self-serve. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so the guidance is reasonably clear but not fully explicit.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, with detailed descriptions that clarify boundaries. The main confusable pair is run_agent_chef vs next_actions, which both return the due-action checklist and operating instructions, differing only by trigger context. propose_recipes vs add_candidates are also related but clearly separated by phase (initiating a cycle vs appending during feedback).
The overwhelming majority follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_, update_, set_, add_, record_, remove_), which is highly predictable. Minor deviations include next_actions being a bare noun phrase rather than get_next_actions, and favorite_recipe using 'favorite' as a verb instead of something like toggle_favorite.
At 34 tools, the surface is heavy for an agent to select from, exceeding the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The domain is genuinely broad, but several utility and meta tools (dismiss_setup_checklist, record_schedule, get_connected_agents, get_instructions) and overlapping entry points (run_agent_chef, next_actions) inflate the count and could be consolidated without losing capability.
The full weekly lifecycle is covered end-to-end: propose, vote, feedback, add candidates, lock in, shop, order, cook, rate, and mark done. Recipe, member, ingredient, and preference management all have solid get/update/create coverage. Minor gaps include no way to delete a recipe, remove a candidate from an active ballot, or cancel a week beyond reopen_voting, but these are work-aroundable and don't create dead ends.