Skip to main content
Glama
dappros

Ethora MCP Server

by dappros
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Send Feedback

ethora-feedback-submit

Send feedback about Ethora issues, bugs, or doc gaps straight to the team. Automatically includes recent session errors for tracing, with no login required.

Instructions

Send feedback about Ethora to the Ethora team: something that does not work, behaves differently from what the tool description promised, is missing, or is badly documented. It reaches the team directly, so prefer it over guessing or silently giving up when a tool fails. Recent failures in this session (tool, error code, request id) are attached automatically when includeRecentErrors is true, which is what makes a report from here more useful than a web form: the team can join it to the server-side log. Works whether or not you are signed in, so a problem that blocks sign-up can still be reported. Do not put credentials, API keys or end-user personal data in message; credential-shaped values in the attached context are redacted before sending. Requires: nothing. Auth: none. Works anonymously; when the session is authenticated the report is attributed to that account. Errors: 422 if message is shorter than 5 characters or looks like spam; 429 if too many reports were sent from this address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoReply address. Only useful when the session is not signed in; an authenticated report already carries the account, so leave this out unless the user offers an address.
messageYesWhat happened, in the user's own words where possible: what was attempted, what was expected, what occurred instead. No credentials or end-user personal data.
categoryNoWhat kind of report this is: `bug` (something is broken), `unexpected` (it works but not as described), `feature` (a request), `docs` (a description or guide is wrong or missing), `other`. Defaults to `other`.
includeRecentErrorsNoAttach this session's last few tool failures (tool name, error code, request id) so the team can trace them. Default true; set false if the report is unrelated to a failure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv26.9.3

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations carry only basic hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses anonymous operation, account attribution when signed in, redaction of credential-shaped values, automatic attachment of recent failures, and 422/429 error conditions. This goes far beyond what the structured fields provide, with no contradiction.

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?

Dense but efficient: every sentence carries a usage trigger, a constraint, or an error condition. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the labeled auth/error block is easy to scan. Nothing feels redundant or promotional.

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?

For a low-risk feedback submission tool, this covers the decision triggers, parameter guidance, auth behavior, redaction, and failure modes. No output schema is present, but an agent already knows enough to call the tool correctly. There is no meaningful gap that would cause a misinvocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why `includeRecentErrors` matters (server-side log join) and that credential-shaped values in attached context are redacted. It partially duplicates the schema text, but the redaction and error-behavior clarifications push it above baseline.

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 an unambiguous verb and resource ('Send feedback about Ethora') and enumerates the report types ('does not work, behaves differently, missing, badly documented'). This clearly distinguishes it from the dozens of operational sibling tools in the list.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to prefer this tool over guessing or silently giving up when a tool fails, and contrasts it with a web form for server-side traceability. It also explains when it is useful even without authentication. The triggers and exclusions are clear enough that an agent can decide when to call it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools