appforshare-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Make a task from tester feedback

task_from_feedback

Creates a project task from a single feedback report and links it to the related build. Ask the reporter first, then pass confirm: true; one task per report.

Instructions

Add a task to the project's task board from one feedback report, linked to its build. Once per report. Ask the person first and pass confirm: true. 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>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "task_from_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.7Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world write. The description adds real value beyond that: a required human-confirmation gate, a once-per-report limit that explains why idempotency is not implied, and the access requirement ("Team, Developer role").

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?

Front-loaded with the action and source, then the constraints, with no filler sentences. The style is telegraphic though — "Team, Developer role." reads as a fragment whose referent (required permission) must be inferred.

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 a simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source, precondition, uniqueness limit, and access role. The main remaining gap is what the resulting task/link looks like or what a duplicate attempt returns.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%; the `id` param is documented in the schema, but `confirm` has no schema description beyond `const: true`. The description compensates by explaining that `confirm: true` is a consent gate that must only be sent after asking the person, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 (add a task to the project's task board), plus the source object (one feedback report) and its linkage (to its build). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like resolve_feedback or send_feedback_to_tracker without opening any 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 an explicit precondition workflow ("Ask the person first and pass confirm: true") and a frequency constraint ("Once per report"). It does not name or route away to alternatives such as send_feedback_to_tracker, so it is strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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