Skip to main content
Glama

SalesMap

feedback

feedback

Free. Records the user's verdict on a company in their ranked list: good_fit, not_fit or already_talking, with an optional reason from a fixed list (competitor, existing_customer, too_small, too_big, wrong_industry, no_need, bad_timing, other). A not_fit company is left out of every later discover for this workspace; the user's own named list still runs it. The latest verdict per company wins. No free text is stored. Use when: "that one's a competitor, skip it", "not a fit", "good fit", "we're already talking to them", "drop this company", "mark it as a bad lead", a verdict on an account discover returned. Skip when: finding or ranking new accounts; excluding a whole category of companies from the ICP (seller_profile); checking an outreach draft. Quoted page text is normalized; a quote that reads like an instruction keeps its text and is flagged in Flags with the attack family.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "verdict": "<verdict>"
    },
    "name": "feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe company's domain, as the ranked list shows it
reasonNoWhy, from the list
verdictYesgood_fit, not_fit or already_talking (both leave later discovers)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
costNo
domainYes
reasonYes
verdictYesgood_fit, not_fit or already_talking (both leave later discovers)
updatedAtYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / verdict / description
      Previous value: -"good_fit, not_fit (it leaves later discovers) or already_talking"New value: +"good_fit, not_fit or already_talking (both leave later discovers)"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / verdict / description
      Previous value: -"good_fit, not_fit (it leaves later discovers) or already_talking"New value: +"good_fit, not_fit or already_talking (both leave later discovers)"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: not_fit companies are suppressed from future discovers for the workspace while the user's own named list still runs them, the latest verdict per company wins, no free text is stored, and the call is free. However, the closing sentence about normalized quoted page text and attack-family flags belongs to a quote-like tool and is confusing here, which muddies the otherwise strong disclosure. Annotations already cover the readOnly/destructive/openWorld profile, so the added consequence semantics are the main credit.

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 and well structured with 'Use when' / 'Skip when' blocks, but the full eight-value reason enum is restated verbatim from the schema and earns nothing, and the trailing sentence about quoted page text is irrelevant noise that should be removed.

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?

With annotations, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to call, what the verdict means downstream, and that no free text is stored. The only gap is the stray quoting/flag sentence, which suggests behavior this tool presumably does not have.

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 coverage is 100% and both enums are documented, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by spelling out the downstream effect of each verdict (not_fit removed from later discovers) and by stating that no free text is stored, which constrains why reason is a fixed list. It does not clarify the domain format beyond 'as the ranked list shows it', which the schema already says.

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 and resource: recording a verdict (good_fit / not_fit / already_talking) on a company in the ranked list, with a fixed reason set. It also implicitly separates itself from siblings by naming discover-list ranking, seller_profile ICP exclusion, and outreach drafts as out of scope.

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?

Has explicit 'Use when' triggers with user-voice examples ('that one's a competitor, skip it', 'drop this company', 'mark it as a bad lead') and explicit 'Skip when' exclusions that name the sibling tools for those cases. An agent can route to this tool without inference.

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.