Skip to main content
Glama
playloop

@playloop/mcp

Official
by playloop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create feedback form

create_feedback_form

Create a player feedback form with up to 20 custom fields (rating, short text, yes/no, long text). Configure required questions, placeholders, and repeat submissions to collect structured playtest feedback.

Instructions

Create a Player Feedback form for a game (the multi-field forms the SDK surfaces in your game via feedback.open / feedback.submit). Requires an ADMIN or OWNER role (members/viewers get 403). Give the form a title and 1-20 fields; each field needs a unique id (answers are keyed by it), a label, and a kind (rating-1-5, short-text, yes-no, or long-text), with optional required/placeholder/helpText. Optional triggerHint notes where the game should show the form; active defaults to true. Set allowRepeatSubmissions to true only for repeat voluntary notes; the default is false. Returns { form }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gameYesGame id or slug.
titleYesForm title, 1-120 chars.
activeNoWhether the form is live. Defaults to true.
fieldsYesThe form fields, in display order (1-20).
triggerHintNoOptional note on where the game shows this form (e.g. "end of run").
allowRepeatSubmissionsNoAllow repeat voluntary notes with distinct request IDs. Defaults to false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth failure mode (403 for members/viewers), defaults for active and allowRepeatSubmissions, the SDK surfacing behavior, and the return shape `{ form }`. This is unusually transparent.

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?

Four dense sentences each add essential information without filler. Key constraints are front-loaded and the structure flows naturally from purpose to requirements to defaults to return value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The definition is complete for a create tool: it covers required fields, optional fields, defaults, auth expectations, and return value. Even without an output schema, the `{ form }` return note is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some useful nuance (unique field ids key answers, field kinds, guidance on repeat submissions), but most parameter meaning is already documented in the schema.

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 explicitly names the action ('Create'), the resource ('Player Feedback form'), and the surrounding context (SDK forms via `feedback.open`/`feedback.submit`). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_game_feedback_forms and other create tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides strong practical guidance: role requirements, field count/schema constraints, defaults, and a specific instruction about when allowRepeatSubmissions should be true. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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