Taste

get_result

Check the status of a previously submitted request. Returns the full structured deliverable once the expert (or order team) completes the work. Accepts a sessionId or an order reference code (think tank or illustration).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessionId`	No	The session ID returned by a paid tool call.
`referenceCode`	No	An order reference code (TASTE-...) from a think tank or illustration order. Use this instead of sessionId to retrieve the result — it always returns the latest revision.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tip`	No
`reason`	No
`status`	Yes
`message`	No
`deliverable`	No
`estimatedWaitMins`	No

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It mentions status check and deliverable return, but doesn't disclose polling behavior, error states, or access requirements. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

Two concise sentences plus parameter details. No fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Output schema exists, so return details are covered. Misses polling behavior and prerequisites. Adequate for a retrieval tool, but could address incomplete work scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and description adds meaningful context: sessionId from paid tool, referenceCode format and behavior (latest revision). Significantly enhances understanding.

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 clearly states the tool checks status and returns deliverables, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from order/revision tools but doesn't explicitly call out siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides context on parameters (sessionId vs referenceCode) but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. Implied usage is clear but not explicit.

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

All Taste 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of human expert evaluation: dispute arbitration, domain consultation, content review, certificate verification, etc. Even similar tools like review_content and prepublish_review differ in their focus (facts vs. cultural sensitivity), and order_think_tank_session_30 and _60 only differ by duration, which is natural.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase with underscores (e.g., arbitrate_dispute, list_offerings, verify_certificate). There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs, making the naming predictable and easy for an agent to infer functionality.

Tool Count5/5

With 17 tools, the server strikes a good balance—enough to cover a wide range of human expert evaluation tasks without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific, justifiable purpose within the domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows like ordering evaluations, retrieving results, requesting revisions, and verifying certificates. However, there is no explicit tool for ordering an illustration (only revision), which is a minor gap. Overall, the surface is nearly complete for the stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?