Interactive Feedback MCP
Enables intelligent and interactive feedback with users, designed to reduce premium OpenAI tool invocations by consolidating multiple requests into a single feedback-aware interaction.
Implements XML-based tool calling format for the interactive_feedback tool, enabling structured communication between the AI assistant and the MCP server.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Interactive Feedback MCPI've refactored the authentication module. Does this meet your requirements?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Interactive Feedback MCP
Developed by Pham Minh Nhat (nhatpm.lab) - nhatpm.lab@gmail.com
🔒 Project Attribution
Maintained by Pham Minh Nhat (
nhatpm.lab)
📧 Email: nhatpm.lab@gmail.com
This project integrates Model Context Protocol (MCP) to ensure intelligent and interactive feedback with the user at critical points.
Related MCP server: MCP Feedback Collector
Prompt Engineering
For the best results, add the following to your custom prompt in your AI assistant, you should add it on a rule or directly in the prompt (e.g., Cursor):
Whenever you want to ask a question, always call the MCP
interactive_feedback.
Whenever you’re about to complete a user request, call the MCPinteractive_feedbackinstead of simply ending the process. Keep calling MCP until the user’s feedback is empty, then end the request.
This will ensure your AI assistant uses this MCP server to request user feedback before marking the task as completed.
💡 Why Use This?
By guiding the assistant to check in with the user instead of branching out into speculative, high-cost tool calls, this module can drastically reduce the number of premium requests (e.g., OpenAI tool invocations) on platforms like Cursor. In some cases, it helps consolidate what would be up to 25 tool calls into a single, feedback-aware request — saving resources and improving performance.
Configuration
This MCP server uses Qt's QSettings to store configuration on a per-project basis. This includes:
The command to run.
Whether to execute the command automatically on the next startup for that project (see "Execute automatically on next run" checkbox).
The visibility state (shown/hidden) of the command section (this is saved immediately when toggled).
Window geometry and state (general UI preferences).
These settings are typically stored in platform-specific locations (e.g., registry on Windows, plist files on macOS, configuration files in ~/.config or ~/.local/share on Linux) under an organization name "NhatPM" and application name "InteractiveFeedbackMCP", with a unique group for each project directory.
The "Save Configuration" button in the UI primarily saves the current command typed into the command input field and the state of the "Execute automatically on next run" checkbox for the active project. The visibility of the command section is saved automatically when you toggle it. General window size and position are saved when the application closes.
```json
{
"mcpServers": {
"interactive-feedback-mcp": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"/Users/nhatpm/Desktop/interactive-feedback-mcp",
"run",
"server.py"
],
"timeout": 600,
"autoApprove": [
"interactive_feedback"
]
}
}
}
```
* You might use a server identifier like `interactive-feedback-mcp` when configuring it in Cursor.For Cline / Windsurf
Similar setup principles apply. You would configure the server command (e.g., uv run server.py with the correct --directory argument pointing to the project directory) in the respective tool's MCP settings, using interactive-feedback-mcp as the server identifier.
Development
To run the server in development mode with a web interface for testing:
uv run fastmcp dev server.pyThis will open a web interface and allow you to interact with the MCP tools for testing.
Available tools
Here's an example of how the AI assistant would call the interactive_feedback tool:
<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>interactive-feedback-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>interactive_feedback</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
"project_directory": "/path/to/your/project",
"summary": "I've implemented the changes you requested and refactored the main module."
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>Acknowledgements & Contact
For any questions, suggestions, or if you just want to share how you're using it, feel free to reach out on X!
Available Tools
1 toolinteractive_feedbackB
Request interactive feedback for a given project directory and summary
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_directory | Yes | Full path to the project directory | |
| summary | Yes | Short, one-line summary of the changes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what 'interactive feedback' entails—whether it blocks, returns data, requires user input, or has side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. While concise, it could benefit from additional structure or brevity, but it effectively communicates the core purpose without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple parameter set (2 strings) and no output schema, but the description omits critical context: what does 'interactive feedback' mean? Is feedback returned or is it a blocking interaction? The minimalism leaves an agent guessing about the tool's complete behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description merely restates 'project directory and summary', adding no extra meaning. Schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Request', the resource 'interactive feedback', and the context 'for a given project directory and summary'. It is specific and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's core function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'Request interactive feedback' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or any alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed, but the description lacks contextual cues for optimal use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v1.0.0- First observed
interactive_feedback
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 distinct by default.
A single tool inherently has perfect naming consistency, as there are no other tools to compare against. The name 'interactive_feedback' follows a clear verb_noun pattern.
One tool is too few for a server named 'Interactive Feedback MCP', which suggests a broader scope for interactive feedback operations. This minimal set feels thin and incomplete for the implied domain.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for an interactive feedback domain. It only provides a request function, with no obvious operations for managing, updating, or retrieving feedback, creating significant gaps for agent workflows.
Related MCP Connectors
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol server for Wix AI tools
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to control Unreal E…
MCP server for building and testing AI agents with multi-model experimentation and insights.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA comprehensive Model Context Protocol server implementation that enables AI assistants to interact with file systems, databases, GitHub repositories, web resources, and system tools while maintaining security and control.29 npm2MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA modern Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to collect interactive user feedback, supporting text and image-based responses.3MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to communicate with each other using Inter-Process Communication, featuring natural language commands and cross-platform compatibility.9133MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceModel Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to query and analyze project feedback and bug reports from FeedbackBasket projects, with filtering by category, status, sentiment, and search capabilities.429 npmMIT