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']}")
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only says 'request' without explaining whether the tool blocks, returns feedback, or opens a UI, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, well-front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every part is necessary to convey the core purpose.

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 output schema and simple parameters, the description should explain the outcome or return value of the request. It does not mention what the agent can expect after invoking the tool, leaving a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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' and the resource 'interactive feedback', scoped to a project directory and summary, which is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided, but there are no sibling tools to differentiate. The description implies usage for requesting feedback but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/noopstudios/interactive-feedback-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server