appforshare-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Send tester feedback to Linear or Jira

send_feedback_to_tracker

Create a Linear or Jira issue from one feedback report, including text, device facts, and screenshots. Use after confirmation to send the report once and return the issue key and link.

Instructions

Create an issue in the workspace's connected Linear or Jira from one feedback report, with its text, device facts and screenshots. A report is sent once; the answer has the issue key and link. Ask the person first and pass confirm: true. Pro and Team, Developer role.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "tracker": "<tracker>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback_to_tracker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Feedback id from list_feedback
`confirm`	Yes
`tracker`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.7Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent call; the description adds the crucial constraint that 'a report is sent once', the human-confirmation requirement, and the entitlement gating. It stops short of covering failure modes (e.g. no tracker connected) or how partial failures behave.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: action, then side-effect and return, then preconditions. The trailing fragment 'Pro and Team, Developer role.' is terse but still informative rather than filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the response contains 'the issue key and link', and it covers the mutation's irreversibility, confirmation, and entitlement requirements. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call correctly appears missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates: it explains tracker as the workspace's connected Linear or Jira, explains id as one feedback report, and explains confirm as the true value to pass only after asking the person. It does not add format detail for id beyond referencing the source report.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an issue in the workspace's connected Linear or Jira'), names the exact source ('from one feedback report'), and enumerates the payload ('text, device facts and screenshots'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling feedback tools without opening the schema.

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 real preconditions: 'Ask the person first and pass confirm: true' plus plan/role eligibility ('Pro and Team, Developer role'). It does not name an alternative such as creating an internal task instead of an external issue, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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