Feedback Hub MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1_DATABASE_ID | Yes | The ID of your Feedback Hub D1 database (run `npx wrangler d1 list` to find it) | |
| CLOUDFLARE_API_TOKEN | Yes | A read-only Cloudflare API token with the Account → D1 → Read permission | |
| CLOUDFLARE_ACCOUNT_ID | Yes | Your Cloudflare account ID (run `npx wrangler whoami` to find it) |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| get_feedback_statsA | Returns the total number of feedback entries in Feedback Hub, with a breakdown by type (bug, feature request, praise...) and by classification status. |
| list_feedbackA | Lists individual feedback entries from Feedback Hub, newest first. Each entry includes the original message, an AI-generated summary, and its classification (type, sentiment, urgency). Optional filters can be combined. Submitter email addresses are never returned. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_feedback_stats returns aggregate counts and breakdowns, while list_feedback returns individual entries. An agent can easily choose between summary statistics and detailed records.
Both names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_feedback_stats and list_feedback. The shared 'feedback' noun and clear verb prefixes make the naming predictable.
Two tools is thin for a feedback hub server, even if the intended scope is read-only. The set feels borderline minimal rather than well-scoped for broader feedback workflows.
The surface only supports reading aggregate stats and listing entries. Core lifecycle operations such as submitting feedback, retrieving a single entry, updating classification/status, or resolving feedback are absent, creating significant gaps for a feedback hub.