Record local coding-agent search feedback to improve future result rankings, capturing opened, changed, ignored, missed, and suggested files for each query.
Record local agent usage feedback for future ranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| missed | No | ||
| opened | No | ||
| changed | No | ||
| context | No | ||
| ignored | No | ||
| outcome | No | unknown | |
| suggested | No | ||
| verification | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Input schema / properties / outcome / enumAdded value: +[
+ "passed",
+ "failed",
+ "blocked",
+ "partial",
+ "unknown"
+]v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only implies local persistence and ranking influence, but does not disclose auth needs, idempotency, error handling, or what exactly is recorded. This is a significant gap for a write/feedback operation.
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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is drastically undersized for an 11-parameter tool. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than effective conciseness.
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?
Although an output schema exists and removes the need to describe return values, the description is completely inadequate for this tool's complexity. It provides no parameter semantics, no usage context, and no behavioral details despite having no annotations.
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 schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. An agent cannot infer the meaning of fields like root, missed, opened, changed, ignored, suggested, or verification from either source.
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 states a specific verb (Record), resource (local agent usage feedback), and purpose (future ranking). It is clear enough to understand the tool's basic function, but it does not differentiate this feedback tool from its sibling mimry retrieval/status tools.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to call this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'for future ranking' implies a post-interaction context, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or sibling references to help an agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.