Skip to main content
Glama
Majrooo

majrooo-mcp-devkit

by Majrooo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

report_tool_feedback

Idempotent

Report bugs, improvements, or feature requests for server tools by writing structured, idempotent feedback to a project file. Use when tools misbehave or a new capability is needed.

Instructions

Report a bug, improvement, or feature request about a tool of THIS server (see list_tools). Writes structured feedback to .mcp/FEEDBACK.md (project-specific, gitignored). Unknown tool names are rejected with a suggestion — set allowUnknownTool:true only when reporting a missing capability of this server. Use this when a tool produces unexpected results, crashes, or when you need a new capability. Entries are idempotent — duplicate reports are skipped.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYesName of the MCP tool this feedback is about (must be a tool of this server, e.g. 'batch_apply_edits')
typeYesType of feedback
titleYesShort summary (1 line)
expectedNoWhat you expected to happen
suggestionNoYour suggestion for a fix or improvement
descriptionYesDetailed description of the issue or request
reproductionNoSteps to reproduce the issue
allowUnknownToolNoFile feedback about a name that is not a tool of this server (default false) — use only for missing-capability reports

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / allowUnknownTool
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "File feedback about a name that is not a tool of this server (default false) — use only for missing-capability reports",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / tool / description
      Previous value: -"Name of the MCP tool this feedback is about"New value: +"Name of the MCP tool this feedback is about (must be a tool of this server, e.g. 'batch_apply_edits')"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the write destination and scope (.mcp/FEEDBACK.md, project-specific, gitignored), the validation behavior (unknown tool names rejected with a suggestion), the allowUnknownTool semantics, and idempotency (duplicate reports skipped). This adds context beyond the annotations and is fully consistent with idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false — no contradiction.

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?

Four sentences that are dense but each earns its place: purpose, destination, validation behavior, usage triggers, and idempotency. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Slightly long for a simple feedback tool, but appropriate given the complexity of the allowUnknownTool edge case.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, validation rules, file destination, and idempotency. The only notable gap is that it doesn't describe what the call returns on success (confirmation, path, etc.), which is a minor omission for an agent invoking this tool.

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 all 8 parameters are already documented in the schema — the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context only for allowUnknownTool (explaining the missing-capability use case), which is a small but genuine contribution.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Report a bug, improvement, or feature request about a tool of THIS server.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the feedback-management siblings (list_feedback, close_feedback) by being the creation/entry tool, and it references list_tools for discovering valid targets.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: 'Use this when a tool produces unexpected results, crashes, or when you need a new capability.' It also defines when NOT to set allowUnknownTool (only for missing-capability reports). It could be stronger by naming list_feedback/close_feedback as the alternatives for viewing or closing feedback, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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