Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Learn Shell

Learn Shell

by sf-shenfeng
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_feedback_status

Move learner feedback from open to acknowledged, addressed, or declined. Use declined with a note to explain rejection.

Instructions

推进一条学习者反馈的生命周期: open → acknowledged → addressed/declined。addressed/declined 是终态, 不可再改。declined 必须带 note——拒绝欠判词, 拒绝的理由保护接受的价值; acknowledged/addressed 的 note 可选。软牙齿: 不推进状态不拦任何闸门 (close_lesson_loop 不看这张表), 但 open 反馈会一直在 get_teacher_inbox 里发光。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "feedback_id": "<feedback_id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_feedback_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo老师的判词, 存入 status_note。declined 时必填 (declining requires the teacher's reasoning — 老师欠判词); 其余可选.
statusYesacknowledged=看到了、在想; addressed=已处理 (改了课/修了产品/回应了诉求); declined=不采纳 (必须带 note 说明为什么).
feedback_idYesrecord_learner_feedback 回执里的 feedback id.
idempotency_keyNo可选。幂等键 (建议 uuid) —— 同一 key 重放此调用返回首次结果, 不重复写入. 网络重试/断线重连时带上同一个 key, 而不是猜"上次到底写没写".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: addressed/declined are terminal and cannot be changed, declined requires a note (validation rule), and the 'soft teeth' effect—advancing status is not enforced by other tools but leaving feedback open keeps it visible in the inbox. This goes well beyond a simple status update.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core lifecycle. Every sentence contributes meaningful information—state transitions, terminality, note requirement, and downstream impact—with no fluff or repetition. The 'soft teeth' metaphor is efficient and memorable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given there is no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, behavioral constraints, validation rules, and relationship to other tools. It is comprehensive for a status-update tool, though it does not mention the return value or error conditions, which are less critical for understanding usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-described. The description adds value by explaining the status lifecycle, terminal states, and the note requirement for declined status, which enriches understanding of the 'status' and 'note' parameters beyond their schema descriptions. It does not need to repeat parameter details.

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's purpose: advancing a learner feedback through its lifecycle (open → acknowledged → addressed/declined). It specifies the resource (learner feedback) and the action (advance lifecycle state), and distinguishes itself from siblings like record_learner_feedback (creation) and get_teacher_inbox (viewing) by emphasizing status transitions.

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?

The description provides context on when to use the tool: when you need to advance feedback status, and explains the consequences of not using it (open feedback stays glowing in get_teacher_inbox, but no hard gates are blocked). It also references related tools (close_lesson_loop, get_teacher_inbox), giving clear situational guidance, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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