submit_feedbackSend feedback about the documentation — a correction, something confusing, something missing. Stored for the docs team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | What kind of feedback this is | |
| page | No | Page path or URL the feedback is about | |
| contact | No | Optional contact (email/handle) for follow-up | |
| message | Yes | The feedback itself |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that feedback is stored for the docs team, indicating a non-destructive write operation. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits like authentication or rate limits, leaving gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. Two short sentences convey purpose and outcome efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description and schema together provide sufficient information. The description clarifies the purpose and the schema covers parameter details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send feedback'), the resource ('documentation'), and examples of feedback types (correction, confusing, missing). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like ask_docs and raise_issue, as it focuses on documentation feedback.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for documentation feedback but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (ask_docs, raise_issue). No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: Q&A, issue filing, page reading, searching, and feedback submission. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (ask_docs, raise_issue, read_page, search_docs, submit_feedback), making them predictable.
5 tools is well-scoped for a documentation server. It covers the primary user interactions without being excessive or insufficient.
The set covers core operations (search, read, ask, file issues, give feedback). Minor omission is a browse or list pages tool, but search compensates.