Courio (sendcourio.com)

send_feedback

Send feedback to the developers of this server: a feature request, or something the user asked for that these tools can't do. The user can also ask you to send feedback directly.

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": {
      "capability": "<capability>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`capability`	Yes	One English sentence describing the missing capability needed for the user's task. Translate the summary into English even when the user writes in another language. Describe generic actions and roles. Omit names, contacts, IDs, credentials and all tool argument values.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description needn't restate them. It adds the useful routing detail that the feedback goes to the server's developers rather than an end user, but says nothing about what happens after submission, whether it is reviewed, or whether repeat submissions are deduplicated.

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 tight sentences with the destination and purpose front-loaded, followed by the trigger condition. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 a one-parameter, non-destructive tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers what the tool does and when to invoke it. The only omission is what a caller should expect as a result or whether submission is rate-limited.

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 the single parameter's schema already specifies the one-English-sentence rule, translation requirement, and redaction of names/IDs/credentials. The description only echoes the intent of the field, adding no format or content guidance beyond the schema.

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 and destination (send feedback to the developers of this server) and clarifies the two content types it accepts: a feature request or a capability the existing tools cannot provide. It is clearly distinct from siblings like send_letter, although it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 concrete triggers: the user asks for a feature, the user requests something these tools can't do, or the user directly instructs the agent to send feedback. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g., do not use for bug reports about the user's own data), so it falls just short of a full when/when-not breakdown.

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

All Courio (sendcourio.com) 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?