Skip to main content
Glama

client_feedback_response_email

Write professional replies to critical client feedback with three modes: accept, clarify, or discuss. Acknowledges concerns and keeps projects moving without defensiveness or over-apology.

Instructions

Write the professional reply to critical or negative mid-project feedback from a client. Three response modes: 'accept' (default — feedback is valid, you acknowledge it and state your action plan), 'clarify' (there's a misunderstanding that needs resolving before you can act — asks one focused clarifying question without being defensive), 'discuss' (feedback is complex or directional enough that a call is needed to align properly). Distinct from revision_response_email (specific change requests like 'change the font' or 'rewrite section 2') — this is for qualitative, directional, or emotional feedback ('this doesn't feel right', 'I'm disappointed with the direction', 'this isn't what I was expecting'). Most freelancers either get defensive, over-apologise, or go silent — this is the professional middle path: acknowledges the concern, shows you heard them, and keeps the project moving forward. Does not count against your monthly draft limit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_nameYesClient's first name or full name
feedback_summaryYesOne sentence capturing what the client said (e.g. 'they said the overall direction feels off and not what they envisioned', 'they expressed disappointment with the visual style')
project_nameNoName of the project
response_modeNoHow to respond: 'accept' (valid feedback, you'll address it — default), 'clarify' (misunderstanding needs resolving first), 'discuss' (complex enough to warrant a call)
action_planNoWhat you'll do to address the feedback (used in 'accept' mode — e.g. 'revisit the colour palette and send two alternative directions by Thursday')
clarification_questionNoThe single most important question to ask (used in 'clarify' mode — e.g. 'were you expecting a more minimal layout, or is it the content hierarchy that feels off?')
your_nameNoYour name for the sign-off
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It details behavioral traits: three response modes with clear definitions, no destructive actions, and the fact that it does not count against monthly draft limit. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).

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?

The description is appropriately sized, front-loading the purpose, then explaining modes, distinguishing from sibling, and adding rationale and a bonus behavioral trait (no draft limit). Every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 modes, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, sibling differentiation, mode details, and a behavioral bonus. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% and includes detailed descriptions for each parameter, including enum values. The tool description explains the three modes, which is already covered in the schema's enum description. While it adds context about when to use each mode, it does not add significantly new semantic meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: writing professional replies to critical/negative mid-project feedback. It specifies three response modes and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'revision_response_email' for specific change requests.

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?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool versus the sibling 'revision_response_email' by contrasting feedback types (qualitative/directional vs. specific change requests). It also advises against common pitfalls (defensiveness, over-apologizing) and promotes the intended professional path.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jabbawocky/proposalcraft'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server