Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vitrine MCP Server

Vitrine MCP Server

Official
by vitrine3d
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Submit Feedback

vitrine_feedback

Submit bug reports and feature requests. Automatically creates a GitHub issue from feedback.

Instructions

Submit a bug report or feature request. Creates a GitHub issue automatically.

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "vitrine_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoWhich page/area this relates to
typeYesFeedback type
messageYesDescription of the bug or feature request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0
  2. Removedv1.0.0
  3. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that it creates a GitHub issue automatically, which is key behavioral info. But lacks side-effect details (e.g., authentication, rate limits, failure modes) since no annotations exist.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Highly concise and front-loads purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema, so description should mention return value (e.g., issue URL). Also omits optional 'page' parameter explanation. Adequate but not complete.

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 description adds no extra meaning. Baseline of 3 applies per rules.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (submit) and resource (bug report/feature request, GitHub issue). It differentiates from all sibling tools which focus on account, model, config, and look operations.

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?

Implicitly indicates use for bugs or features, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. However, siblings don't overlap, so context is clear.

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