Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
mrexodia

User Feedback

by mrexodia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

用户反馈 MCP

简单的MCP 服务器，可在Cline和Cursor等工具中实现人机交互工作流。这对于开发需要进行复杂用户交互测试的桌面应用程序尤其有用。

显示反馈 UI 的屏幕截图

快速工程

为了获得最佳效果，请将以下内容添加到您的自定义提示中：

在完成任务之前，使用 user_feedback MCP 工具向用户征求反馈。

这将确保 Cline 在将任务标记为完成之前使用此 MCP 服务器来请求用户反馈。

Related MCP server: mcp-connect

.user-feedback.json

点击*“保存配置”*会在您的项目目录中创建一个.user-feedback.json文件，如下所示：

{
  "command": "npm run dev",
  "execute_automatically": false
}

此配置将在启动时加载，如果启用了execute_automatically ，您的command将立即执行（无需手动点击*“运行*”）。对于多步骤命令，您应该使用类似Task 的命令。

装置（克莱恩）

要在 Cline 中安装 MCP 服务器，请按照以下步骤操作（见屏幕截图）：

显示安装步骤的屏幕截图

  1. 全局安装uv ：

    • Windows： pip install uv

    • Linux/Mac： curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh

  2. 克隆此存储库，本例中为C:\MCP\user-feedback-mcp 。

  3. 导航到 Cline MCP 服务器配置（见屏幕截图）。

  4. 单击*“已安装*”选项卡。

  5. 单击配置 MCP 服务器，将打开cline_mcp_settings.json 。

  6. 添加user-feedback-mcp服务器：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "github.com/mrexodia/user-feedback-mcp": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": [
        "--directory",
        "c:\\MCP\\user-feedback-mcp",
        "run",
        "server.py"
      ],
      "timeout": 600,
      "autoApprove": [
        "user_feedback"
      ]
    }
  }
}

发展

uv run fastmcp dev server.py

这将在http://localhost:5173打开一个 Web 界面并允许您与 MCP 工具进行交互以进行测试。

可用工具

<use_mcp_tool>
<server_name>github.com/mrexodia/user-feedback-mcp</server_name>
<tool_name>user_feedback</tool_name>
<arguments>
{
  "project_directory": "C:/MCP/user-feedback-mcp",
  "summary": "I've implemented the changes you requested."
}
</arguments>
</use_mcp_tool>

Available Tools

1 tool
user_feedbackC

Request user feedback for a given project directory and summary

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_directoryYesFull path to the project directory
summaryYesShort, one-line summary of the changes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 the tool 'requests' feedback but doesn't explain how this is done (e.g., via UI prompt, email, logging), what permissions are needed, whether it's interactive or automated, or what happens after the request. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like how feedback is requested or what the tool returns, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's operation and results. This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in feedback mechanisms.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (project directory path and summary). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 action ('Request user feedback') and specifies the target ('for a given project directory and summary'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings since none exist, and 'request' could be interpreted as initiating a feedback collection process rather than retrieving existing feedback, which is somewhat ambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as the context for requesting feedback, prerequisites, or alternatives. With no sibling tools, this isn't a major issue, but it lacks any usage context, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observeduser_feedback
Deploy Server
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap between tools. The tool 'user_feedback' has a singular, clear purpose, so an agent cannot misselect among alternatives.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'user_feedback' follows a consistent snake_case pattern. Since there is only one tool, there is no inconsistency in naming conventions to evaluate.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and suggests a thin or incomplete surface. For a server named 'User Feedback', one tool may not adequately cover potential operations like viewing, managing, or analyzing feedback.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for a 'User Feedback' domain. It only provides a way to request feedback, missing essential operations such as retrieving, updating, deleting, or listing feedback, which are necessary for a full CRUD lifecycle.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessResponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches