Skip to main content
Glama

get_quality_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the completed full-file report for seven days: record count, rules, redacted failure counts and bounded record references. This report is NOT the original dataset.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_quality_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context: a seven-day scope, that failures are redacted, that record references are bounded, and an explicit warning that this is not the source data — all useful for interpreting results and avoiding misuse.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by an enumerated payload list and a single disambiguating warning. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the job of describing returns (counts, rules, redacted failures, bounded references) and flags the data limitation. The remaining gap is operational: it never explains how to obtain job_id or what 'completed' status looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one parameter (job_id) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — not where the id comes from (a start/quote check call) nor what makes a job eligible. With no structured coverage, the description should have compensated and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb+resource ('Read the completed full-file report') plus an enumeration of contents (record count, rules, redacted failure counts, bounded record references). It also carves out scope by stating it is NOT the original dataset, which separates it from the download-style sibling, though it never names that sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Completed' implies the report exists only after a check finishes, and 'NOT the original dataset' nudges toward the download tool for raw data. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no named alternative, and no precondition about how to obtain a valid job_id.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.