Skip to main content
Glama
rodlunt

engineering-audit

by rodlunt

submit_feedback

Submit audit run feedback, including run metadata and consented telemetry. Files a GitHub issue or provides a mailto fallback if filing fails.

Instructions

Send optional run feedback to the tool author.

    Requires a resolved configuration. There is nothing to send unless
    config.feedback_text was set on the configuration page, or the
    calling agent supplies extra_text; if neither is present this
    raises rather than filing an empty, pointless issue.

    The feedback body always carries the free text plus a run-metadata
    section (tool version, rules pack, assistant, model, repository,
    timestamps), and then each telemetry section the user consented to
    on the configuration page (coverage totals, findings rollup by
    severity/domain id, self-assessment, environment); an unconsented
    section is left out entirely. Finding text itself is never
    included, only counts.

    Files a labelled issue on the tool author's feedback repository via
    gh. If gh is unavailable or filing fails for any reason, the
    feedback is never lost: this returns a mailto fallback instead,
    with the same body, so the agent can offer to open the user's mail
    client or hand over the text to paste in manually.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
extra_textNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so richly: it discloses that unconsented telemetry sections are omitted, finding text is never included, filing uses gh, failures fall back to mailto, and the feedback is never lost. These are behavioral traits beyond simple read/write hints.

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 three focused paragraphs: purpose, content composition rules, and failure behavior. Every sentence provides necessary behavioral or contextual information, with no redundancy.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, the description covers all essential context: preconditions, what data is included/excluded, privacy consent, and error/fallback behavior. Since an output schema exists, not detailing return values is acceptable.

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 schema provides no description for extra_text (0% coverage), but the description explains it as supplemental free text supplied by the calling agent, and clarifies the condition that without it or config.feedback_text the tool raises. This adds meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool sends optional run feedback to the tool author, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like file_issues by focusing on run feedback rather than user-facing issue filing.

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 explicitly states prerequisites: requires a resolved configuration, and has content only if config.feedback_text or extra_text is provided, otherwise raises. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but provides clear operational when-to-use guidance.

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/rodlunt/engineering-audit'

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