Skip to main content
Glama

PlanExe

by io.github.PlanExeOrg

send_feedback

Idempotent

Submit feedback about PlanExe — issues, impressions, or suggestions. Callable at any point in the workflow; fire-and-forget, never blocks. Use category to classify: mcp (MCP tools, SSE, plan_status, workflow), plan (the generated output files), code (PlanExe source), docs (documentation), other. Optionally attach to a plan via plan_id. Use rating (1-5) for sentiment: 1=strong negative, 3=neutral, 5=strong positive. Especially useful for reporting: SSE streams that close before plan completion, plan_status returning stale or inconsistent data, queue delays where workers are slow to pick up plans, and impressions of plan output quality after reviewing reports. Include specific details (plan_id, percentages, timestamps) when reporting issues.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ratingNoSentiment: 1=strong negative, 2=weak negative, 3=neutral, 4=weak positive, 5=strong positive.
messageYesFree-text feedback. Include environment context if reporting an issue.
plan_idNoOptional plan UUID to attach this feedback to.
categoryYesFeedback category: mcp, plan, code, docs, or other.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesConfirmation message.
feedback_idYesServer-generated UUID for this feedback entry.
received_atYesUTC timestamp when the feedback was received (ISO 8601).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds 'fire-and-forget, never blocks' and 'callable at any point', which are useful behavioral traits. These enrich the agent's understanding of side effects and execution semantics without contradicting any annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose. Each sentence contributes unique information: what, when, categories, rating, plan_id, use cases, and reporting tips. It is dense but not bloated, with every sentence earning its place.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety profiles. It thoroughly covers when to use, how to categorize, rating semantics, plan_id linkage, and practical examples of useful feedback. It omits error handling or prerequisites, but these are less critical for a feedback submission tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value by expanding the category values (mcp, plan, code, docs, other) with practical sub-contexts (e.g., mcp includes SSE and plan_status). It also clarifies the rating scale and advises including plan_id and specific details, which goes beyond the schema 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 opens with 'Submit feedback about PlanExe' — a specific verb and resource, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on plan management, models, and examples. It also mentions the range of feedback (issues, impressions, suggestions) and states it is callable at any point, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use the tool ('Callable at any point in the workflow') and enumerates concrete scenarios (SSE streams closing, stale plan_status, queue delays, reviewing plan output quality). While it does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, the unique nature of a feedback tool means alternatives are unnecessary; the context is clear enough.

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

All PlanExe toolsInspect
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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose within the PlanExe workflow. For example, example_plans and example_prompts serve different preparatory functions, while plan_create, plan_status, plan_stop, plan_resume, and plan_retry handle distinct lifecycle stages of plan generation. No tools appear to duplicate functionality, making selection clear for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with all tools using snake_case and clear action-object pairs (e.g., plan_create, plan_status, plan_stop). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention across the set.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of generating and managing strategic project plans. Each tool serves a specific role in the workflow, from preparation (example_prompts, model_profiles) to creation (plan_create), monitoring (plan_status), lifecycle management (plan_stop, plan_resume, plan_retry), and feedback (send_feedback). The count is appropriate and avoids bloat or gaps.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides complete coverage for the plan generation domain, including CRUD-like operations (create, list, status, stop, resume, retry) and supporting functions (examples, model selection, file retrieval, feedback). There are no obvious gaps; agents can handle the entire lifecycle from prompt drafting to plan retrieval and error recovery without dead ends.

Resources