qURL

Send LayerV feedback

submit_feedback

Send authorized bug, feature, or friction reports to the LayerV team for human review, excluding credentials, private links, personal data, and conversation history.

Instructions

Send feedback about LayerV MCP to the LayerV team in Slack for human review. Use for bugs, missing features, or friction. Send only a brief report the user has authorized you to share. Never include credentials, private links, personal data, or conversation history. Receipt confirms delivery, not a promised fix. Do not automatically retry an uncertain delivery.

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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "submit_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Brief report with expected and actual behavior. Exclude secrets, personal data, links, and conversation history.
`category`	Yes
`tool_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`feedback_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.7Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the downstream destination (a Slack channel for human review), the meaning of the receipt ("confirms delivery, not a promised fix"), and non-idempotent retry behavior, which reinforces idempotentHint=false with actionable guidance. Annotations alone would not tell an agent that a submission is visible to humans and is not a support commitment.

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?

Five short sentences, each carrying a distinct payload: purpose, triggers, content limits, receipt semantics, retry rule. The purpose and audience are front-loaded, and there is no restatement of the schema or title.

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?

For a three-parameter, open-world submission tool with an output schema already covering the receipt, this covers destination, privacy constraints, and delivery semantics well. The only real gap is the unexplained tool_name parameter, which an agent may fill incorrectly or leave out to avoid guessing.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description must compensate; it reinforces the message parameter ("brief report the user has authorized you to share", plus the exclusion list) and implicitly maps the bug/feature/friction categories. However, the tool_name parameter is never explained in the description or schema, leaving what it should contain to inference.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Send feedback about LayerV MCP to the LayerV team in Slack") plus the destination and review path. This is instantly distinguishable from every sibling, which are all qurl/CRID lifecycle tools, and an agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ("Use for bugs, missing features, or friction") and a retry policy ("Do not automatically retry an uncertain delivery"). It does not name alternatives, but no sibling overlaps with this purpose, so the missing exclusion is low-cost.

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

Deploy Server