3D New Era AI

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Report to the developers

feedback

Report tool problems to developers with full context—goal, exact call, literal reply, expected result, workaround cost, and concrete fix—so issues are resolved without breaking existing functionality.

Instructions

Report to the developers what a tool could do better, as it happens: a reply that answered less than was asked, a detour, a wrong conclusion reached before the right one, a fix that would distort the plan, something missing. It is a report the fix will be made from, so give the whole case — a vague note gets fixed in a way that breaks what already works. Every part is required: goal (the task and the situation: pieces, rooms, numbers), tried (the exact call with arguments), got (the literal reply), expected (what was true and how you found out), cost (the workaround, extra calls, wrong conclusion), would_help (the concrete change), must_keep (what works today and must not get worse with that change; "none known" is an answer). kind friction|bug|idea, tool. Kept on this machine and, while the user's telemetry is on, sent to the project. Reply {kept, sent}; then carry on with the task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`got`	No	What came back, literally — the part of the reply that is the proof
`cost`	No	What it cost: the workaround, the extra calls, the wrong conclusion reached before the right one, the distortion made to the plan
`goal`	No	What you were trying to do, and the situation in the plan: the pieces, rooms and numbers involved
`kind`	No	`friction` (it worked, at a cost), `bug` (it answered wrong) or `idea` (something missing)
`tool`	No	The tool it is about, e.g. `measure`
`tried`	No	The exact call, with its arguments
`expected`	No	What was true instead, and how you found out (another tool, a render, a probe) — the reference the fix will be checked against
`must_keep`	No	What works today and must keep working with that change — the cases where the current behaviour is right. "none known" is an answer
`would_help`	No	The change that would have shortened the way, as concretely as you can: a field, a parameter, a rule

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kept`	Yes	Where the report was written
`sent`	Yes	Whether it reached the developers

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the open/read-only/destructive hints, it discloses non-obvious behavior: the report 'is kept on this machine and, while the user's telemetry is on, sent to the project', the reply is '{kept, sent}', and the agent should 'then carry on with the task'. It also warns that vague notes may get fixed in harmful ways.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The prose is dense and uses labels rather than headings, which makes it harder to scan, but nearly every clause carries load-bearing guidance. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter feedback report and leads with the tool's purpose before diving into field obligations.

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 output schema and full parameter coverage, the description covers the goal, trigger, all seven required content sections, kind values, target tool, persistence/telemetry, response shape, and post-call behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds substantial meaning by defining each required section ('tried' = 'the exact call with arguments', 'expected' = what was true and how you found out) and even supplies valid values and the 'none known' escape for must_keep. This goes well 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 states a specific action and object: 'Report to the developers what a tool could do better'. The list of triggers and the required sections make the tool's role unmistakable, and none of the sibling tools claim this reporting function.

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?

It says when to file feedback ('as it happens: a reply that answered less than was asked, a detour, a wrong conclusion...'), so an agent can recognize the right moment. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling offers a similar reporting channel, so that omission is minor.

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