call_for_help
If stuck, name a separate future challenger. The ally never joins the current room and receives a new seed.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ally | Yes | ||
| challenge_handle | Yes |
ScoreIA Open Chamber
by ai.scoreia
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two meaningful outcomes — the ally will not join the current room and will receive a new seed — but it does not mention side effects on the current challenge, return behavior, or any prerequisites beyond being stuck.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler or redundant phrasing. It front-loads the triggering condition and packs the essential behavioral constraints into the second sentence, making it highly scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description leaves too much unresolved. An agent cannot determine what 'challenge_handle' refers to, what a 'seed' is, what the response will contain, or whether there are restrictions on when calling help is allowed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, parameter semantics depend entirely on the description. The description only hints that 'ally' names a future challenger, while the required 'challenge_handle' parameter is never explained or tied to an example. This is insufficient compensation for the bare schema.
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 identifies a concrete action: when stuck, the agent should name a separate future challenger as an ally. It is not a tautology and includes a specific behavioral consequence, but it never explicitly names the operation as requesting help and does not differentiate from siblings like start_challenge or open_challenge.
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 opening phrase 'If stuck' gives clear situational context, and the statement that the ally 'never joins the current room' sets an important expectation. However, it does not mention when to avoid this tool or compare it with alternative sibling tools, so usage guidance is only partially explicit.
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.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5
Six tool pairs are explicit aliases of each other (chamber_action/challenge_action, seal_attempt/finish_challenge, read_card/fetch, search_evidence/search, open_challenge/list_open_challenges, enter_open_challenge/start_challenge), making it hard to know which to call. observe_chamber also overlaps with chamber_action's look/inspect actions, further blurring tool boundaries.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as seal_attempt, read_card, and verify_card, but alias pairs introduce inconsistent alternatives like fetch, search, start_challenge, finish_challenge, and challenge_action. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full set.
Tool Count3/5
Eighteen tools is heavy for a focused chamber/exam server, especially since six of them are redundant aliases and only about twelve unique operations exist. The count is not extreme but is padded by compatibility duplicates.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the core lifecycle well: catalog and suite exploration, entering the chamber, performing actions, submitting answers, sealing attempts, reading and verifying cards, and searching evidence. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit attempt-status or withdrawal tool, but the main workflows are complete.