Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RBPaaS MCP Server

RBPaaS MCP Server

by mm-gtm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_customer_feedbacks

Retrieve customer feedbacks with optional filters by project, status, category, assignee, and overdue status for targeted tracking and resolution.

Instructions

顧客フィードバック一覧を取得する。

Args: project_id: プロジェクトIDでフィルタ status: ステータスでフィルタ (open/in_progress/resolved/wont_do) category: カテゴリでフィルタ (feature_request/bug_report/inquiry/complaint/action_item) assignee_id: 担当者IDでフィルタ overdue_only: 期限超過のみ取得 (デフォルト: False)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_customer_feedbacks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNo
categoryNo
project_idNo
assignee_idNo
overdue_onlyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description implies read-only behavior via '取得する' (retrieve) but does not explicitly disclose side-effect-free status, pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. Since no annotations are provided, more detail would be expected, though the simple list-retrieval nature mitigates the 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list. Every piece of information is relevant and no words are wasted.

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 all five parameters and their roles, which is adequate for a list-retrieval tool. It does not explain return values or pagination, but no output schema exists and the tool's output is intuitive. The absence of cross-references to sibling tools is a minor gap.

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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by explaining each parameter's purpose, including allowed values for status and category and the default for overdue_only. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets a list of customer feedbacks with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_overdue_feedbacks, but the filter parameters imply a broader retrieval scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_overdue_feedbacks or other get_* tools. The description only lists parameters without explaining use cases or exclusions.

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