Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Awesome Tools

by tools.awesome
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

submit_feedback

Send feedback to the Awesome Tools team, optionally about a tool slug.

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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "submit_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNo
messageYes
categoryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether feedback is reviewed by a human, whether it requires authentication, whether submissions are rate limited, or what the caller receives on success or failure. Only the target recipient is revealed.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no wasted wording, which is good. However, that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being tight but complete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple three-parameter tool with no output schema, so extensive documentation is not required. Still, an agent gets no information on what happens after submission or how the category and message constraints should be interpreted.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. It mentions the optional slug, but never explains the category enum values (bug, missing_feature, question, other) or the message's 2000-character limit, which the agent only learns from the raw 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send feedback to the Awesome Tools team'. The clause 'optionally about a tool slug' clarifies scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling submit_tool, but 'feedback' versus submitting a tool is reasonably distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as submit_tool, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for bug reports, feature requests, questions, or other notes rather than catalog submissions.

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

All Awesome Tools toolsInspect
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