Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@findtime/mcp-server

@findtime/mcp-server

by hkchao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

send_feedback

Report a wrong, incomplete, or unhelpful findtime.io time answer by identifying the affected tool and describing the mistake for review.

Instructions

Report a wrong, incomplete, or unhelpful findtime.io MCP answer. Call this after a tool result that you or the user judged incorrect. Required: tool, query, and whatWasWrong. Optional: expectedAnswer. Only the tool name is sent to findtime.io; the query, expected answer, and other free text stay local and are discarded. Never send names, emails, phone numbers, IP addresses, or raw user ids.

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": {
      "tool": "<tool>",
      "query": "<query>",
      "whatWasWrong": "<whatWasWrong>"
    },
    "name": "send_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolYesMCP tool that produced the unhelpful result, such as answer_time_question, convert_time, or get_current_time.
queryYesOriginal time query or lookup text. Strip names, emails, and other personal data first.
_endUserIdNoOptional opaque per-call end-user attribution token populated by the MCP host, not the LLM. Use a non-PII hash or token; never send raw email, name, or platform user ID.
whatWasWrongYesShort description of the mistake or why the answer was unhelpful.
expectedAnswerNoOptional correct time, timezone, or location the tool should have returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.28.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations mark this as not readOnly and not destructive but also not openWorld, even though the description says the tool name is transmitted to findtime.io; that tension is minor and does not amount to a contradiction. The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: the free text stays local and is discarded, and only the tool name is sent. Since the annotations already cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is five short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the trigger, and closes on the privacy constraint, which is the highest-risk detail. The required/optional enumeration partially duplicates the schema, so it is not perfectly waste-free.

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-complexity, five-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, what is transmitted, what stays local, and the PII prohibition. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the tool/query/whatWasWrong/expectedAnswer semantics already live in the input schema. The description restates which fields are required versus optional and adds a PII-stripping instruction that the schema also carries, so it contributes little new meaning. The host-populated _endUserId is rightly left to the schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Report a wrong, incomplete, or unhelpful findtime.io MCP answer.' Among the fifteen sibling tools, only this one submits feedback, so the agent can distinguish it from answer_time_question, convert_time, and the rest 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?

The description gives a clear trigger: 'Call this after a tool result that you or the user judged incorrect.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for the tool and names no alternative because none exists. It does not explicitly state when not to call it, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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