Pod

Give Pod feedback

feedback

Record private product feedback inside Pod about whether results helped or what capability was missing. This does not send a message or publish content. Available without sign-in.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	Use helpful when Pod aided the task, or improvement when Pod lacked a needed capability.
`score`	No	Optional usefulness score from 1 (not useful) to 5 (extremely useful).
`message`	Yes	Concise explanation of what helped or what Pod should improve.
`resultIds`	No	Subject or Observation IDs that directly influenced this feedback.
`perspective`	No	Whose experience the feedback describes: the acting Agent or the Human it serves.
`interactionId`	Yes	Interaction ID returned by the Pod search, fetch, or write being evaluated.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Stable Pod Feedback ID.
`ok`	Yes	Confirms that Pod recorded the feedback.
`kind`	Yes	Kind of feedback that Pod recorded.
`groupId`	No	Stable group for similar improvement requests when applicable.
`message`	Yes	Concise confirmation of what Pod recorded.
`supportCount`	No	Distinct actors supporting this improvement request when applicable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the feedback is private, records rather than publishes, has no messaging side effect, and works without sign-in. This usefully scopes the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it does not do, and an availability caveat. The primary purpose is front-loaded and there is no wasted wording.

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 six-parameter tool with a fully described schema, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the non-obvious context: privacy, lack of publishing side effects, and no sign-in requirement. An agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all six parameters, so the description need not repeat them. The reminder about 'results helped' and 'capability missing' loosely maps to the kind enum, but adds minimal value over the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record'), a specific resource ('private product feedback inside Pod'), and a clear scope ('whether results helped or what capability was missing'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like search and fetch, which retrieve information rather than record feedback.

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 clearly positions the tool as the feedback-recording action and states what it does not do ('does not send a message or publish content'), providing a useful when-not boundary. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for sending/publishing, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to know when feedback is appropriate.

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

All Pod tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: search handles general experience queries, find_mcp/inspect_mcp are MCP-server-specific, fetch opens detail pages, and feedback records private input. The only mild overlap is between search and find_mcp, but their descriptions make the intended domain difference clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are lowercase imperative verbs, which gives the set a recognizable command-like style. The two MCP-specific tools use the consistent verb_mcp suffix, while the others are single-word verbs, so the pattern is mostly consistent with minor structural variation.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped number for a Pod discovery platform covering search, fetch, MCP directory lookup, inspection, and feedback. Each tool serves a distinct user need without unnecessary bloat or redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core read/discovery workflow: search experiences, fetch full pages, find and inspect MCP servers, and provide feedback. Obvious gaps are limited—there is no explicit way to submit an experience or publish content, but feedback partially covers contribution.

Resources

Need Help?