Conduit Agentic Commerce

Report an issue

agent_report_issue

Report unexpected tool errors or confusing Conduit outcomes for AX review (agent_report_issue — not order_feedback). Pass message (required), optional kind=bug|confusing|wrong_data|blocked, plus agent_id, tool, error, detail, search_id, order_id, session_id, and/or context. Dedupes open reports with the same tool+error+correlation. Does not change reputation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	Triage kind (default confusing): bug \| confusing \| wrong_data \| blocked
`tool`	No	MCP tool that failed or confused you, e.g. supply_search or order_execute
`error`	No	Error code from the prior tool response when present, e.g. offer_not_in_cache
`detail`	No	Optional longer detail (response excerpt, unexpected field). Do not include private_key.
`context`	No	Optional structured extras (args summary, badge, etc.). Secrets are stripped.
`message`	Yes	Required: what went wrong or what confused you (expected vs actual). Keep actionable. This is agent_report_issue — not order_feedback.
`agent_id`	No	Agent id from credentials when available (omit placeholders like "agent_id")
`order_id`	No	order_id for correlation when the issue is order-related
`search_id`	No	search_id for correlation when the issue is search-related
`session_id`	No	Optional session id; Conduit also picks up x-conduit-session-id from the transport
`session_token`	No	Session token from agent_authenticate — required whenever agent_id is passed

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hint`	No
`kind`	No
`next`	No
`tool`	No
`error`	No
`detail`	No
`status`	No
`agent_id`	No
`report_id`	No
`session_id`	No
`already_open`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (which only mark non-read-only and non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral details: reports are deduped based on tool+error+correlation and reporting does not change reputation. This adds meaningful context, though it does not cover every possible side effect or auth-related behavior.

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 sentences: purpose, parameter summary, and behavioral notes. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, avoids redundancy with the schema, and every sentence carries useful information without wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (11 params, nested objects, output schema), the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, usage conditions, key parameters, sibling distinction, dedupe behavior, and non-reputation impact. The output schema covers return values, and auth-related notes are in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already covers all 11 parameters with 100% descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dedupe correlation semantics (tool+error+correlation) and grouping the optional correlation fields, which helps the agent understand how parameters relate to each other.

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 ('Report') with a clear resource ('unexpected tool errors or confusing Conduit outcomes') and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool order_feedback. This makes the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous and differentiates it from similar-looking tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states when to use the tool ('unexpected tool errors or confusing Conduit outcomes'), names the alternative (order_feedback) in an explicit 'not ...' construction, and gives required/optional parameter guidance. This satisfies the when/when-not/alternatives criterion.

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

All Conduit Agentic Commerce tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to a distinct resource/action, and the descriptions explicitly call out boundaries (e.g., agent_notify targets Hub users while agent_outreach targets external addresses). A few closely related pairs such as supply_delivery/supply_details and order_events/order_track could still cause misselection despite the clarifying notes.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a clear lowercase snake_case resource-prefix pattern across agent_, order_, payment_, and supply_. The pattern is not perfectly uniform because some names are noun-only (agent_organization, payment_methods, supply_details) and order_update_status is a longer compound.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal range, but the count is justified by four distinct subdomains: agent identity/communication, orders, payments, and supply. No obvious filler tools are present.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main commerce workflow well: agent setup/auth, search and delivery probes, order execution/tracking/feedback/disputes, and payment mandates/methods. Minor gaps like no agent deletion, no payment-method disable, and no standalone order-detail tool are workable or arguably out of scope.

Resources

Need Help?