Skip to main content
Glama

submit_feedback

Send the course team feedback FOR the learner — what's confusing, a bug, an idea, or praise. No grade, no admin key. Use it the moment a learner is stuck or reacts to something, AND always offer it when a session wraps ('anything confusing, or that you wish it did?'). Routes to the team's Slack + the feedback log so friction becomes a signal instead of a 1:1 text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional category.
lessonNoOptional: the lesson slug it's about.
learnerNoOptional: the learner's name/email so the team can follow up.
messageYesThe learner's feedback, in their own words (≤2000 chars).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: it's a write operation that routes to Slack and feedback log, non-destructive, no admin key needed. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and destination. Every sentence adds value and is clearly structured.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, behavior, and routing. With no output schema and simple parameters, description is complete and actionable for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds context like 'FOR the learner' and maps 'kind' options to feedback types, but does not significantly exceed schema information.

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?

Explicitly states the tool sends feedback to the course team on behalf of the learner, listing specific types (confusing, bug, idea, praise). Distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on lessons and sessions.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: when a learner is stuck or reacts, and always at session wrap. Also clarifies what it is not for ('No grade, no admin key').

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: lesson management, session handling, admin operations, feedback, and overview. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., complete_lesson, start_session), but 'overview' is a plain noun, breaking the pattern. The rest are consistent.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for a course management system, covering all essential operations without bloat.

Completeness4/5

Covers lesson lifecycle, session management, admin actions, and feedback. Minor gap: no tool for editing lesson content, but not core to the server's purpose.

Resources