Skip to main content
Glama

log_execution_feedback

Track prompt performance feedback to improve reasoning framework selection over time. Submit task IDs and execution results for optimization.

Instructions

Log feedback about how a generated prompt performed.

Used to track effectiveness and improve framework selection over time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe task ID from generate_meta_prompt
feedbackYesFeedback about how well the prompt worked

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the log_execution_feedback tool, which uses the @mcp.tool() decorator for registration and updates feedback in the storage.
    @mcp.tool()
    def log_execution_feedback(
        task_id: Annotated[str, "The task ID from generate_meta_prompt"],
        feedback: Annotated[str, "Feedback about how well the prompt worked"],
    ) -> dict:
        """
        Log feedback about how a generated prompt performed.
        
        Used to track effectiveness and improve framework selection over time.
        """
        deps = get_dependencies()
        updated = deps.storage.update_feedback(task_id, feedback)
        
        if not updated:
            return {
                "success": False,
                "error": f"Task ID not found: {task_id}",
            }
        
        return {
            "success": True,
            "message": f"Feedback logged for task {task_id}",
        }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool logs feedback for tracking and improvement, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a logging tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more front-loaded with key details like the connection to generate_meta_prompt.

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 tool's moderate complexity (logging with two parameters), 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and high-level usage, but lacks behavioral details that annotations would normally provide, such as idempotency or error handling.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (task_id and feedback) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Log feedback about how a generated prompt performed' specifies the verb (log) and resource (feedback). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_meta_prompt (creates prompts) and get_usage_stats (retrieves statistics). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., recommend_strategy could involve feedback).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context: 'Used to track effectiveness and improve framework selection over time' suggests it's for post-generation evaluation. It references generate_meta_prompt via the task_id parameter, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_usage_stats or recommend_strategy for tracking purposes.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BlinkVoid/PromptSmith'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server