Interactive Feedback MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| interactive_feedbackB | Request interactive feedback for a given project directory and summary |
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 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility for ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as requesting interactive feedback for a project directory and summary, leaving no room for confusion with other tools.
The single tool name 'interactive_feedback' follows a clear snake_case pattern with a descriptive verb-noun structure. Since there is only one tool, consistency is inherently perfect with no deviations or mixed conventions to evaluate.
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and scope. While it might suffice for a very narrow task like interactive feedback, it feels thin and lacks the breadth typically expected for an MCP server, which often handles multiple related operations.
The tool surface is minimal, covering only the core action of requesting feedback. However, for a domain focused on interactive feedback, there are notable gaps—such as tools for managing feedback sessions, retrieving past feedback, or updating feedback—that could hinder agent workflows and create dead ends.