Stratify

submit_feedback

Files a bug report or feature request when the user asks to report something. Confirm the title and body with the user before filing. Passing backtest_id attaches that backtest's spec so the issue can be reproduced.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	What was expected, what happened, and any spec involved. Write it from the user's report, not from your own summary of it.
`title`	Yes	One line naming the problem or request.
`category`	No	Omit it and it will be inferred from the text.
`severity`	No
`backtest_id`	No	The result this is about, if any.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`status`	No
`message`	No
`category`	No
`severity`	No
`feedback_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "feedback_id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "severity": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide read-only and destructive hints; the description adds real behavioral context: confirmation before filing and the fact that passing backtest_id attaches the backtest's spec for reproducibility. It could say more about side effects or destinations, but the key behaviors are disclosed.

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 and trigger, then the key behavior and parameter nuance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 5-parameter tool with an output schema and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, trigger, confirmation step, and the most important parameter behavior. Minor gaps such as not naming alternatives are present, but the overall package is agent-actionable.

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?

With 80% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that backtest_id attaches the backtest spec so the issue can be reproduced. The confirmation instruction also reinforces the role of title and body. Severity is not elaborated, but the schema already provides an enum.

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 clearly states the action ('Files a bug report or feature request') and the trigger condition ('when the user asks to report something'). It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool my_feedback, but the scope is understandable and specific enough for an agent.

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 an actionable trigger condition ('when the user asks to report something') and a required pre-step ('Confirm the title and body with the user before filing'). It does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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

All Stratify 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?