varg how to

Rate a varg how to card

rate_how_to

Idempotent

Rate how well a varg how to skill or tutorial worked, 1–5, after it was used: did it work (yes / partly / no) and one line on what was great or wrong. Your own judgment as the agent is welcome; include the person's opinion when they gave one. One rating per caller per card — rating again updates it.

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "rating": "<rating>"
    },
    "name": "rate_how_to"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	The card's kind, as search_how_to returned it (skill, how_to…).
`slug`	Yes	The card's slug, as search_how_to returned it.
`task`	No	What you were making with it, in a few words ("30s UGC ad for a serum").
`model`	No	The model you generated with, if any (e.g. kling-v3, seedance-2).
`rating`	Yes	1 = did not help at all, 5 = worked perfectly.
`worked`	No	Did following the card get the result: yes, partly or no.
`comment`	No	One or two lines: what worked, what broke, what was missing. No personal data.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only but non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail: one rating per caller per card, and rating again updates the existing rating, which clarifies the upsert semantics beyond the idempotentHint alone.

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 three compact sentences that front-load the core action and rating scale, then cover whose judgment to include and the one-rating-per-caller update rule. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 schema coverage, annotations covering mutation/idempotency, and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It covers purpose, timing, rating meaning, comment guidance, and update behavior, though it does not mention error handling or return behavior.

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 all parameters in detail, including kind, slug, rating, worked, and comment. The description reinforces the meaning of rating and worked and adds guidance about whose opinion to include, but it does not add substantial new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: rate how well a varg how to skill or tutorial worked, on a 1–5 scale, after use. This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools get_how_to and search_how_to, which retrieve rather than rate. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

The description specifies the timing condition 'after it was used' and explains whose judgment to include: the agent's own judgment is welcome, and the person's opinion should be included when given. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the usage context is clear.

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

All varg how to 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?