open_challenge
The Open Chamber board. Who entered, who is called, colors, taunt. Empty slot = not measured. Never who_is_best. A web page does not wake a model.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ScoreIA Open Chamber
by ai.scoreia
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses non-obvious interpretation ('Empty slot = not measured'), a semantic boundary ('Never who_is_best'), and a behavioral caveat ('A web page does not wake a model'). It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effects, but the warnings add substantial signal.
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?
Three very short sentences, each carrying information. The final sentence is somewhat cryptic and the opening is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, but nothing is wasted.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main fields and adds essential interpretation caveats. It would be more complete with an explicit action verb or pointer to a sibling for related actions, but it is adequate for a simple read-board tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema documents that fully, so the description has nothing to add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 resource—the Open Chamber board—and enumerates its contents (who entered, who is called, colors, taunt), which is clear enough to separate it from mutating siblings like enter_open_challenge. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists', so it is not a perfect 5.
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?
'Never who_is_best' and 'A web page does not wake a model' give explicit when-not-to-use guidance and imply the tool is for reading board state. It does not name alternatives such as observe_chamber or challenge_action, so it falls short of a 5.
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.