Skip to main content
Glama
noopstudios

Interactive Feedback MCP

by noopstudios

interactive_feedback

Submit a project directory and short summary to request interactive feedback from a human, enabling human-in-the-loop review during AI-assisted development.

Instructions

Request interactive feedback for a given project directory and summary

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • server.py:64-70 (handler)
    The tool handler function for interactive_feedback, registered as an MCP tool via @mcp.tool() decorator. Takes project_directory and summary parameters, returns launch_feedback_ui result.
    @mcp.tool()
    def interactive_feedback(
        project_directory: Annotated[str, Field(description="Full path to the project directory")],
        summary: Annotated[str, Field(description="Short, one-line summary of the changes")],
    ) -> Dict[str, str]:
        """Request interactive feedback for a given project directory and summary"""
        return launch_feedback_ui(first_line(project_directory), first_line(summary))
  • server.py:64-64 (registration)
    Registration of interactive_feedback as an MCP tool using the @mcp.tool() decorator from FastMCP.
    @mcp.tool()
  • Schema definition with Pydantic Field annotations describing the tool's input parameters (project_directory and summary) and return type (Dict[str, str]).
    def interactive_feedback(
        project_directory: Annotated[str, Field(description="Full path to the project directory")],
        summary: Annotated[str, Field(description="Short, one-line summary of the changes")],
    ) -> Dict[str, str]:
  • Helper function that launches feedback_ui.py as a subprocess, passing project_directory and summary as arguments, and reads the result from a temp JSON file.
    def launch_feedback_ui(project_directory: str, summary: str) -> dict[str, str]:
        # Create a temporary file for the feedback result
        with tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile(suffix=".json", delete=False) as tmp:
            output_file = tmp.name
    
        try:
            # Get the path to feedback_ui.py relative to this script
            script_dir = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__))
            feedback_ui_path = os.path.join(script_dir, "feedback_ui.py")
    
            # Run feedback_ui.py as a separate process
            # NOTE: There appears to be a bug in uv, so we need
            # to pass a bunch of special flags to make this work
            args = [
                sys.executable,
                "-u",
                feedback_ui_path,
                "--project-directory", project_directory,
                "--prompt", summary,
                "--output-file", output_file
            ]
            result = subprocess.run(
                args,
                check=False,
                shell=False,
                stdout=subprocess.DEVNULL,
                stderr=subprocess.DEVNULL,
                stdin=subprocess.DEVNULL,
                close_fds=True
            )
            if result.returncode != 0:
                raise Exception(f"Failed to launch feedback UI: {result.returncode}")
    
            # Read the result from the temporary file
            with open(output_file, 'r') as f:
                result = json.load(f)
            os.unlink(output_file)
            return result
        except Exception as e:
            if os.path.exists(output_file):
                os.unlink(output_file)
  • The interactive_feedback field is populated from the UI's text input (feedback_text.toPlainText()) and returned as part of FeedbackResult. The string 'interactive_feedback' is used as a key in the FeedbackResult TypedDict.
    print(f"\nFeedback received:\n{result['interactive_feedback']}")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 fails to explain what 'interactive feedback' entails—whether it blocks, returns data, requires user input, or has side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. While concise, it could benefit from additional structure or brevity, but it effectively communicates the core purpose without waste.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set (2 strings) and no output schema, but the description omits critical context: what does 'interactive feedback' mean? Is feedback returned or is it a blocking interaction? The minimalism leaves an agent guessing about the tool's complete behavior.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description merely restates 'project directory and summary', adding no extra meaning. Schema coverage is high, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Request', the resource 'interactive feedback', and the context 'for a given project directory and summary'. It is specific and unambiguous, leaving no doubt about the tool's core function.

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 usage by stating 'Request interactive feedback' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or any alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed, but the description lacks contextual cues for optimal use.

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