Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
majrooo-mcp-devkit

majrooo-mcp-devkit

by Majrooo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_feedback

Read-onlyIdempotent

List feedback entries from the project's active log or archive, filtering by type, tool, or status to check existing issues before adding new feedback.

Instructions

List feedback entries from .mcp/FEEDBACK.md (open entries; closed ones are moved to .mcp/FEEDBACK_ARCHIVE.md). Optionally filter by type, tool name, or status — pass archived:true to read the archive of closed entries instead. Use this to check existing feedback before creating new entries, or to review reported issues.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNoFilter by tool name
typeNoFilter by feedback type
statusNoFilter by status
archivedNotrue = list archived (closed) entries from .mcp/FEEDBACK_ARCHIVE.md instead of the active log

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / archived
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "true = list archived (closed) entries from .mcp/FEEDBACK_ARCHIVE.md instead of the active log",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: open entries live in FEEDBACK.md, closed entries are moved to FEEDBACK_ARCHIVE.md, and archived:true switches to reading the archive. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 with no filler. The core action and file location are front-loaded, followed by filtering semantics and a usage hint. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only list tool with zero required parameters and fully documented schema, the description plus annotations cover everything an agent needs: what is listed, where it is read, how filtering works, and when to call it. No critical information is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all four parameters and enums for type and status, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the filtering options and archived behavior already present in the schema, adding minimal new semantic value.

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?

The description states the specific action and resource: 'List feedback entries from .mcp/FEEDBACK.md'. It also clarifies the open-versus-archived split, which distinguishes this from the feedback creation/closure siblings. The intended purpose is immediately clear.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Use this to check existing feedback before creating new entries, or to review reported issues.' It implies the alternative workflow (creating entries via report_tool_feedback) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools