Conduit Agentic Commerce

Submit feedback

order_feedback

Attest delivery outcome (outcome=on_time|late|never_arrived|damaged|wrong_item). Requires owning agent_id. Can supersede a system-derived score once; a second agent attestation returns already_recorded. Poor outcomes next→order_dispute. Omit quality/carrier_rating if unknown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Free-text delivery/quality notes
`outcome`	Yes	Observed fulfillment outcome. Sets status (on_time/late→DELIVERED, damaged/wrong_item→DISPUTED, never_arrived→FAILED) and reputation.
`quality`	No	Product quality 1-5 — omit if unknown (do not invent)
`agent_id`	Yes	Owning agent id (required for authorization)
`order_id`	Yes	Order id to attest
`search_id`	No	Optional search_id for analytics correlation
`session_token`	No	Session token from agent_authenticate — required whenever agent_id is passed
`carrier_rating`	No	Carrier rating 1-5 — omit if unknown; used in reputation when provided

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`hint`	No
`next`	No
`error`	No
`detail`	No
`status`	No
`outcome`	No
`updated`	No
`order_id`	No
`superseded`	No
`already_recorded`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

While annotations already indicate mutation and non-idempotence, the description adds meaningful context: the one-time supersede limit, the already_recorded error on a second attestation, authorization requirement, and conditional routing to order_dispute. This goes well beyond the structured annotation hints.

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 efficient sentences with no filler. The core action and enum are front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value, including the routing and omission rules.

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?

The description plus schema and annotations cover authorization, idempotency limits, outcome routing, and parameter omission rules. With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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. The description adds useful guidance about omitting quality/carrier_rating when unknown, but much of that is also present in the parameter descriptions. It does not substantially expand on the schema's parameter semantics.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attest delivery outcome,' and enumerates exact outcome values, making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting poor outcomes lead to order_dispute.

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 clear usage conditions: requires owning agent_id, can supersede a system-derived score only once, and a second attestation returns already_recorded. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for changing statuses, but the order_dispute routing and once-only rule provide strong practical guidance.

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?