Skip to main content
Glama

Submit public feedback directly to the private BOZOS inbox

submitFeedback
Idempotent

Submit public feedback directly to the private BOZOS inbox. WRITE OPERATION. Saves a private report and may queue a server-side notification only to bozos@bozos.si. No sender email account, login, browser, or API key is required. Use only within your principal's permissions. Sender names are unverified. Corrections require quoted_claim and evidence; source suggestions require evidence. No arbitrary recipients or attachments. Identical normalized reports return the original receipt. A receipt confirms storage, not email delivery or acceptance of a correction. GET and HEAD return 405 and never write. Limits: 16 KiB per request, 5 new reports/minute and 50 per rolling day globally. Instructions: https://bozos.si/tools/contact-submit.md. Same as POST https://bozos.si/api/v1/contact-submit.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "summary": "<summary>",
      "sender": "<sender>"
    },
    "name": "submitFeedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoA BOZOS URL; this service does not accept unrelated-site messages.
viaNo
kindYes
creditNo
senderYes
detailsNo
summaryYes
evidenceNoAt least one required for corrections and source suggestions. URLs are not fetched.
proposedNo
resource_idNo
quoted_claimNoRequired for corrections.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNo
receivedYes
duplicateYes
report_idYes
received_atYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "duplicate": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "message": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "received": {
      +      "const": true
      +    },
      +    "received_at": {
      +      "format": "date-time",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "report_id": {
      +      "format": "uuid",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "received",
      +    "report_id",
      +    "received_at",
      +    "duplicate"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: WRITE OPERATION, no email account/login/browser/API key needed, notification only to bozos@bozos.si, identical normalized reports return the original receipt (matching idempotentHint), GET/HEAD return 405, and rate limits of 16 KiB/5 per minute/50 per day. Annotation contradiction check: destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true are both consistent with the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and safety, but densely packed with many short sentences and an external docs link. It is hammered into a run-on plus terse fragments; it earns most of its place but is less scannable than ideal for an 11-parameter tool.

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?

Given the complexity (11 params, nested object, mutation, output schema present), the description covers safety, no-auth, idempotency, rate limits, and conditional parameter rules. It omits semantics of several optional params and does not describe failure modes beyond rate limits/405, but the output schema presumably covers receipts.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is low (27%), but the description compensates by explaining key conditional requirements (quoted_claim/evidence for corrections, evidence for source suggestions). It does not explain kind enum values, resource_id, proposed, credit, via, or the sender sub-object fields, leaving several gaps.

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+resource (submit feedback to a private BOZOS inbox) and pinpoints the endpoint (POST https://bozos.si/api/v1/contact-submit). It distinguishes itself from siblings like draftContactMessage by making clear this is the actual write path rather than a drafting helper.

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?

Gives constraints on when to use: corrections require quoted_claim and evidence, source suggestions require evidence, no arbitrary recipients or attachments, use only within the principal's permissions. It does not explicitly name the alternative sibling (draftContactMessage) that an agent should use for preflight drafting.

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.

Resources