Skip to main content
Glama

Tenjin

by blog.tenjin

Report a search outcome

report_search_outcome

Tell the marketplace what a prior search was actually worth: whether you used the answer you bought, partly used it, rejected it, regenerated the work yourself, or declined to buy at all. This is the demand signal publishers act on — an honest "rejected" or "purchase_declined" is as useful as a "used", and reporting nothing leaves the loop blind. Keyless and anonymous: possession of the searchId is the only credential, no wallet and no signature. Returns 202 with { accepted } and nothing else by design — the endpoint deliberately cannot confirm or deny that a search exists, so a stale or swept searchId is accepted silently rather than 404ing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outcomesYesOne outcome, or a batch of up to 10. A single-element array IS the single-report case; the route normalizes both the same way.
searchIdYesThe `searchId` (uuid) returned by the `search` whose results you are rating

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it is keyless and anonymous, requiring only the searchId. It returns 202 with { accepted } and nothing else, and deliberately cannot confirm or deny existence of a search (to avoid leaking info). This adds significant transparency about security, privacy, and the API's response behavior. Annotations are { readOnlyHint: false, openWorldHint: true, destructiveHint: false }, which are consistent with the description (not read-only, open world, not destructive). No contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured, with three sentences that front-load the key purpose, then provide usage and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage, behavioral traits (anonymity, response), and the meaning of outcomes. No additional context is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the outcomes array (e.g., a single-element array is the single-report case, batch up to 10), and clarifies the meaning of 'resourceId' and 'contentHash' beyond what the schema provides. It also reinforces the searchId's role. The description adds marginal but useful context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to report what a prior search was worth, listing the possible outcomes (used, partly used, rejected, regenerated, purchase_declined, or declined to buy). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on post-search feedback, which is distinct from the 'search' tool itself, and from 'submit_feedback' which is likely general feedback.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: after a prior search, to report the actual outcome. It also provides guidance on not using it? It says 'reporting nothing leaves the loop blind', implying it should always be used after a search. It also explains that an honest 'rejected' is as useful as a 'used', providing context on the value of different reports. No explicit exclusions, but the 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 Tenjin toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: answer and search are both search-like but one returns a single synthesized answer vs a shortlist, which is a meaningful difference. A few overlaps exist, like get_article vs pay_and_read where both unlock content, but they handle payment differently. Naming is mostly clear but answer and search could cause temporary confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Overwhelmingly uses verb_noun pattern (get_article, delete_essay, list_articles, publish_essay, update_profile), which is predictable. answer and search are exceptions that don't follow the pattern, but they are the primary entry points for a key workflow, so their deviation is understandable and they still convey their purpose. Minor inconsistency keeps it from a 5.

Tool Count5/5

22 tools is on the higher end but wholly appropriate for a content marketplace that involves two distinct roles (creator and buyer) with separate write vs read flows, payment handling, search, trending signals, feedback, and image uploads. Each tool earns its place with a clear role in supporting either the publishing or the discovery/purchase workflow.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete coverage for both reader and publisher workflows. Readers can search, browse, preview, buy, read articles, and report outcomes. Creators can publish, list, update, soft-delete essays, manage their profile, upload images, track sales and stats. The answer feedback loop via report_search_outcome and get_trending is a notable addition that closes the loop. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.

Resources