Submit metadata-only feedback on context package usefulness to help refine future context retrieval, without exposing package contents.
Submit metadata-only feedback about context package usefulness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'metadata-only' which suggests no side effects on the context package itself, but this is minimal. The annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is ambiguous. The description doesn't elaborate on what 'feedback' entails, how it's stored, or any effects on the context system. It relies on the annotations but adds little beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the key constraint ('metadata-only'). It is minimal but not under-specified to the point of tautology, and every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema and no parameter schema, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining what the tool does and how to use it. It only states the purpose in a vague way and lacks details on the feedback structure, expected behavior, or error conditions. This is insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty with additionalProperties: true. Schema coverage is 100% because there are no parameters to document. The description mentions 'metadata-only feedback' but does not specify what metadata fields are expected or how they should be provided. Since there are zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to clarify the free-form nature, so a 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'metadata-only feedback about context package usefulness', which gives a general idea but lacks a specific verb and resource. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like context_status or context_evidence. The verb 'submit' is implied but not stated, making the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. The sibling tools (context_assemble, context_explain, context_evidence, context_status) suggest related actions, but the description doesn't explain why an agent would choose this over them. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.