NeoCoder Neo4j AI Workflow

add_template_feedback

Improve action templates by submitting feedback, ratings, and specific suggestions for better coding workflows.

Instructions

Provide feedback about an action template to improve it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>",
      "feedback": "<feedback>"
    },
    "name": "add_template_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rating`	No	Optional rating (1-5)
`keyword`	Yes	Keyword of the template (e.g., FIX, REFACTOR)
`feedback`	Yes	The feedback to provide about the template
`suggestions`	No	Specific suggestions for improvements

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing whether the feedback is stored, if it modifies the template, or if special permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately tells the reader what the tool does.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Although the tool has a complete schema and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens when feedback is submitted, any side effects, or when to use the tool. Given the lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not fully complete for a mutating operation.

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?

The schema provides full coverage of all parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Optional rating (1-5)', 'Specific suggestions for improvements'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('provide feedback') and resource ('action template'), and the intent ('to improve it'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which focus on 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 at a high level (when you want to give feedback) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or any prerequisite conditions. There are no direct sibling alternatives for feedback, but the guidance is still only implied.

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