Arclan MCP Registry

report_server

Submit an agent usage report for an MCP server. Reports are aggregated and influence registry trust scores. Call this after using an MCP server so the registry can track real-world reliability. Supports both a simple outcome report and a structured scoring report (criterion + component_score).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`errors`	No	Array of error strings encountered during tool use
`agentId`	No	Identifier for the reporting agent (optional)
`outcome`	Yes	Result of using the server
`severity`	No	Severity of the worst issue encountered
`criterion`	No	Specific reliability criterion being scored (enables structured component scoring)
`latencyMs`	No	Total wall-clock latency in milliseconds
`serverUrl`	Yes	The MCP server endpoint URL that was used
`toolsUsed`	No	List of tool names that were called
`environment`	No	Environment the server was used in
`evidenceRef`	No	Trace ID, log URL, or other reference supporting this report
`taskCategory`	No	Category of task attempted (e.g. "search", "write", "read")
`turnsRequired`	No	Number of turns to complete the task
`componentScore`	No	Score 0–100 for the specified criterion
`taskDescription`	No	Brief description of what the task was

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedMay 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / componentScore

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Score 0–100 for the specified criterion",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / criterion

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Specific reliability criterion being scored (enables structured component scoring)",
+  "enum": [
+    "output_reliability",
+    "side_effect_transparency",
+    "failure_handling",
+    "rate_limits",
+    "agent_feedback"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / environment

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Environment the server was used in",
+  "enum": [
+    "prod",
+    "staging",
+    "dev",
+    "unknown"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / errors

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Array of error strings encountered during tool use",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / evidenceRef

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Trace ID, log URL, or other reference supporting this report",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / severity

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Severity of the worst issue encountered",
+  "enum": [
+    "info",
+    "warning",
+    "error",
+    "critical"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedMay 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions aggregation and influence on trust scores, but lacks details on idempotency, authentication, rate limits, or response behavior. Some transparency is present but incomplete.

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?

Two focused sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states action, second gives usage context, third lists supported modes. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a 14-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers basic purpose and modes but lacks details on usage frequency, error handling, duplication semantics, and integration into workflow. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 description coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by explaining two modes of reporting: simple outcome and structured scoring (criterion + component_score), clarifying parameter relationships beyond the schema.

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 'Submit an agent usage report for an MCP server' with specific verb and resource. It explains the purpose (influence registry trust scores) and distinguishes from sibling tools (get_server, query_registry, recommend_server) which are query-oriented.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after using an MCP server' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, limiting full guidance.

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

All Arclan MCP Registry tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?