Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
coderocket-mcp

coderocket-mcp

by mlgraham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

generation_feedback

Submit feedback on a generated workflow to indicate if it worked, partially worked, or failed.

Instructions

Submit feedback on a generated workflow (worked, partial, or failed).

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": {
      "generation_id": "<generation_id>",
      "feedback": "<feedback>"
    },
    "name": "generation_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentNoOptional feedback comment
feedbackYesHow well the generated workflow worked
generation_idYesGeneration ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Submit feedback,' indicating a write operation, but does not disclose permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or what happens after submission. The lack of side-effect or response context is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and outcome categories without waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, storage behavior, or any post-conditions, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical '(worked, partial, or failed)' merely restates the enum values already present in the schema and adds no additional parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit feedback'), the resource ('generated workflow'), and the specific outcome categories ('worked, partial, or failed'). It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which relate to feedback submission.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when giving feedback on a generated workflow) but does not explicitly discuss prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives. The sibling tools are unrelated, so there is no confusion, but the guidance is still only implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools