Skip to main content
Glama

Resolve feedback

loopback_resolve_feedback
Idempotent

Close feedback items by marking them verified or wontfix, with an optional note and your agent name, to turn reporter pins green after confirming the fix.

Instructions

Close a feedback item with a final outcome.

Args: id, resolution ('verified' = the fix was confirmed against the running app, tests, or the relevant metric/replay; 'wontfix' = intentionally not addressing), note (optional closing comment), agent (YOUR name — this is the write that turns the reporter's pin full green, and omitting it records the generic default instead of you).

Prefer verifying before resolving: re-check the UI via your browser tools, or confirm the error/metric cleared, then call this.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFeedback id, e.g. 'fb_mabc12_3f9a1c'
noteNoOptional closing note recorded as a comment
agentNoWho is resolving — your agent name. Recorded on the trail; defaults to 'agent'. This is the write that turns the reporter's pin green, so name yourself.
resolutionYes'verified' = fix confirmed against the running app/metric; 'wontfix' = intentionally not addressing

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFeedback id, e.g. 'fb_mabc12_3f9a1c'
urlNo
bodyYes
typeYes
extraYesFree-form captured context. Read `extra.failed_responses` for failing requests with up to 2KB of response body, and `extra.context` for LLM/automation run metadata (run_id, model, trace_url).
linksYesRepo/branch/commit/PR of the fix
routeNo
titleYes
sourceYes
statusYes
consoleYesConsole lines captured at report time
networkYesNetwork calls captured at report time
projectYes
commentsNoFull audit trail
reporterYes
severityYes
created_atYes
replay_urlNo
resolutionNo
updated_atYes
attachmentsNoFiles attached to this item. `intent` decides what you do with each: 'reference' is context for the fix and never ships; 'asset' is a deliverable — copy it from `path` to `target_path` in the repo, commit it, and record that with loopback_link_change. Read files from `path` directly rather than fetching `url`.
repro_stepsYes
dom_selectorNo
assignee_agentNoAgent currently holding the claim
screenshot_pathNo
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it's a write that 'turns the reporter's pin full green' and explains the consequence of omitting the agent parameter. It also clarifies the semantics of 'verified' and 'wontfix'. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, idempotent write, and the description enriches this without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then parameter explanations, then a usage guideline. Every sentence adds essential information, with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers purpose, parameters, usage guidance, and side effects (turning pin green). The output schema exists (though not shown) so return values are handled. Minor gaps: it doesn't state whether a closed item can be reopened or how this affects statistics, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-defined. The description adds extra nuance for 'agent' (records generic default if omitted) and reinforces the meaning of the resolution enum, providing value 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Close a feedback item with a final outcome') that clearly distinguishes this from siblings like loopback_update_feedback or loopback_update_status. The notion of a 'final outcome' (verified/wontfix) uniquely identifies the tool's role.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Prefer verifying before resolving' and re-checking the UI or metrics before calling. This implies when to use the tool (after verification) and sets a behavioral expectation, though it doesn't explicitly state alternative tools for non-final updates.

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/joshidikshant/loopback'

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