Skip to main content
Glama
aidesignblueprint

AI Design Blueprint Doctrine

Official

signals.feedback

Captures explicit user feedback on Blueprint surfaces, including category, free-text body, and optional contact email for follow-up. Use only when user requests feedback submission.

Instructions

Public — records explicit free-text user feedback about the Blueprint, this tool surface, or a specific principle/example. Captures category (bug, doctrine_critique, missing_example, ergonomics, other), free-text body, and optional contact_email when permission_to_follow_up is true. WHEN TO CALL: ONLY when the user explicitly says they want to give feedback (e.g. 'can you log this as feedback', 'file this critique', 'send a bug report'). Use signals.report instead for value-moment metrics (rating validate's output 1-5). WHEN NOT TO CALL: proactively, silently, or to substitute for signals.report. Never harvest contact info without explicit permission_to_follow_up=true. BEHAVIOR: write-only, no auth required (open to all callers), single insert into UserFeedback. UK/EU residency. contact_email is stored ONLY when permission_to_follow_up=true, and that fact is confirmed back in the response so the user can see the privacy boundary.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
surfaceNoWhich Blueprint surface the feedback is about. Use 'mcp' if the session was via Claude Code or another MCP client. Use 'principles', 'examples', 'guides', 'coaching', or 'validation' based on what the user interacted with.
task_typeNoWhat the user was doing when they decided to give feedback. Use plain English — e.g. 'code-review', 'architecture-design', 'agent-setup', 'onboarding', 'validation'. Infer from context.
what_helpedNoAsk the user: 'What was most helpful?' Record their answer verbatim or paraphrased in plain English. Max 1000 chars. No code snippets, no proprietary content.
what_missingNoAsk the user: 'What was missing or could be improved?' Record their answer verbatim or paraphrased. Max 1000 chars.
contact_emailNoOnly ask for this if the user explicitly says they want a follow-up response. Never prompt for email unprompted. Only stored when permission_to_follow_up=true.
rating_clarityNoAsk the user: 'How clear was the Blueprint guidance? Rate 1–5.' 1 = very unclear, 5 = very clear. Only set if the user gives an explicit number.
would_use_againNoAsk the user: 'Would you use the Blueprint again for a similar task?' Set true/false based on their answer. Only set if they answer explicitly.
rating_usefulnessNoAsk the user: 'How useful was the Blueprint for this task? Rate 1–5.' 1 = not useful, 5 = very useful. Only set if the user gives an explicit number.
permission_to_follow_upNoSet to true only if the user explicitly said they want a follow-up. Must be confirmed before storing contact_email.
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: 'write-only, no auth required, single insert, UK/EU residency, privacy boundary for contact_email'. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false).

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?

Well-structured with sections, front-loaded with purpose and usage. Slightly verbose but all sentences add value. Could be tightened but effective.

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 9 parameters (none required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and privacy context. Schema descriptions handle parameter details adequately.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces privacy rules but adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's specific verb ('records explicit free-text user feedback') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool signals.report by stating it captures feedback vs. value-moment metrics.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit WHEN TO CALL section: only when user explicitly gives feedback. WHEN NOT TO CALL prohibits proactive/silent use and substitution for signals.report, naming the alternative directly.

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/aidesignblueprint/integrations'

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