signalis-mcp

submit_feedback

Rate a master digest as good or bad and add optional comments to provide quality feedback for future intelligence.

Instructions

Submit quality feedback on a master digest (POST /v1/intelligence/feedback). FREE, no wallet or API key required.

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": {
      "digestId": "<digestId>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "submit_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rating`	Yes	Quality rating for the digest: "good" or "bad"
`comment`	No	Optional free-text comment
`digestId`	Yes	The id of the digest you are rating
`digestType`	No	Which digest type the feedback applies to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context — 'FREE, no wallet or API key required' — and the POST endpoint implies mutation. However, it does not disclose what happens after submission (e.g., response format, idempotency) or any rate limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, endpoint, and key requirement (no API key/wallet). Every word earns its place with zero filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and auth requirement. However, it omits any mention of return values, duplicate prevention, or how comments/digestType fit into the submission flow, leaving some gaps.

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 every parameter has a description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema; 'master digest' maps to digestId, but no new semantics or relationships are introduced.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('quality feedback on a master digest'), and even includes the endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, all of which are read-only.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for submitting feedback, while all sibling tools are retrieval-oriented. It doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or mention alternatives, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server