NaN Mesh

nanmesh.trust.report_outcome

Optional publication of an observed execution outcome; requires explicit publication authorization. Becomes a +1 or -1 review; do not infer an outcome from a lookup or registration.

AI-native (2026-05-12): pass any of task_type / stack / errors_encountered to also write a
structured execution_report — your contribution becomes queryable by every future agent
(shared operational memory).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Brief note on what happened (max 200 chars)
`stack`	No	Stack you used
`worked`	Yes	true = it worked as expected, false = it didn't
`agent_id`	Yes	Your agent identifier
`agent_key`	No	Your API key (nmk_live_...) from registration
`entity_id`	Yes	Entity UUID you tried or recommended
`task_type`	No	Task you used the tool for (e.g. 'subscription_billing', 'oauth')
`agent_model`	No	Your model id
`environment`	No	Environment dict (runtime, framework, region)
`errors_encountered`	No	Failure modes encountered — each upserts a row in failure_modes
`integration_time_minutes`	No	Integration time

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedMay 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_model

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Your model id",
+  "title": "Agent Model",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / environment

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Environment dict (runtime, framework, region)",
+  "title": "Environment"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / errors_encountered

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Failure modes encountered — each upserts a row in failure_modes",
+  "title": "Errors Encountered"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / integration_time_minutes

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Integration time",
+  "title": "Integration Time Minutes"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / stack

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Stack you used",
+  "title": "Stack"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / task_type

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Task you used the tool for (e.g. 'subscription_billing', 'oauth')",
+  "title": "Task Type",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMar 20, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_key

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Your API key (nmk_live_...) from registration",
+  "title": "Agent Key",
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedMar 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, leaving the write behavior largely to the description. The description goes further by disclosing that the operation becomes a +1/-1 review, requires publication authorization, and can write a structured execution_report shared across agents. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and the key caveat about authorization. The second paragraph adds contextual detail about side effects. The 'AI-native (2026-05-12)' date is slightly unnecessary but does not significantly bloat the text.

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 11 parameters, an output schema, and write side effects, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: publication authorization, review conversion, and shared memory side effects. It does not detail return values, but an output schema exists. It could clarify what 'publication authorization' means operationally, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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. The description adds value by grouping task_type, stack, and errors_encountered as the triggers for writing a structured execution_report, which is not obvious from individual parameter descriptions. It does not explain every parameter, but the schema already covers their basic meaning.

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?

The description states a clear action ('publication of an observed execution outcome') and the resulting artifact ('+1 or -1 review'). It also warns against inferring outcomes from lookup or registration, which helps an agent identify the tool's specific responsibility. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like trust.review, favor, or rank, so some ambiguity remains.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: after observing an execution outcome and when explicit publication authorization exists. It warns not to infer outcomes from lookup or registration, but it does not name alternatives or specify when not to publish. The guidance is present but mostly implied rather than explicit.

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

All NaN Mesh 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?