Skip to main content
Glama

Panel Review

by ai.truverif
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

record_outcome

Report whether a prior TruVerifAI MCP call (synthesize / deliberate / audit) was useful and whether it changed the decision you would have made without it. Call this AFTER you've acted on (or explicitly rejected) the response from the prior call. Free — no credits charged. The user sees the aggregate on their TruVerifAI dashboard; outcome reporting is how they evaluate whether the tool is worth keeping.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNo1-2 sentences on what specifically shifted (or didn't). REQUIRED when useful=false OR changed_decision=false OR category='other' — the no-op cases are the most informative and we want a concrete reason. Max 500 chars. DO NOT include confidential or code-specific details (no proprietary file paths, no function or class names from the user's codebase, no secret values, no internal system identifiers, no copy-pasted source). Describe the decision in general terms only.
impactYesDecision blast radius. HIGH = hard to reverse (multi-file refactor to undo) OR touches a security/safety boundary OR affects load-bearing logic many callers depend on. MEDIUM = recoverable with effort; bounded blast radius. LOW = trivially reversible.
usefulYesTrue if the prior response informed your decision-making in any way (caught something, confirmed something, or surfaced a tradeoff you hadn't considered). False if it was noise or duplicated what you already knew.
call_idYesThe mcp_<uuid> request_id from the prior MCP call — find it in the prior response body's top-level post_action.call_id (or usage.request_id); it is in the body, not _meta.
categoryYesThe kind of decision this MCP call was about. Pick the closest single fit. Use 'other' only when nothing else applies (and explain in notes). Powers the per-category dashboard slicing the user relies on to evaluate which decision types TruVerifAI helps with.
changed_decisionYesTrue if your action AFTER reading the response differs from what you were about to do BEFORE the call. False if you proceeded as originally planned (even if the call was still useful as confirmation).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds valuable context: the operation is free, it records to the user's dashboard, and the aggregate is used for tool evaluation. It could further disclose idempotency or duplicate-call behavior, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 four tight sentences, each adding new information: purpose, timing, cost, and user-facing value. It front-loads the core action and avoids repeating schema details.

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 the rich parameter schema and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough operational context: when to call, what the call does, and why it matters to the user. A small gap is not describing the tool's return value or behavior on an invalid call_id, but that is not critical for a side-effect-oriented reporting tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, but it also does not need to; the baseline of 3 applies because the structured descriptions carry the weight.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Report whether a prior TruVerifAI MCP call ... was useful and whether it changed the decision.' It names the prior call types (synthesize / deliberate / audit) and makes clear this is a feedback-recording tool, not one of the analysis tools.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this AFTER you've acted on (or explicitly rejected) the response from the prior call.' It also notes the call is free, which is useful context, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the sibling record_gate_skip or state when not to use it.

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

All Panel Review toolsInspect
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