Skip to main content
Glama

Mark written answers

hiring_mark_assessment

Give points to the written answers of a completed test (0 up to each question's points). Costs $0.01 per call; nothing if it fails.

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": {
      "applicant_id": "<applicant_id>",
      "assessment": "<assessment>",
      "marks": "<marks>"
    },
    "name": "hiring_mark_assessment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
marksYes[{"question": "q4", "points": 3}]
assessmentYesThe test (its slug from hiring_list_assessments).
applicant_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by stating the scoring range and the $0.01 per-call cost with no charge on failure.

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 two short clauses, front-loads the action, and includes the important cost caveat without wasted text. Every part 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?

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, scoring bounds, and pricing, but it omits what applicant_id identifies, whether existing marks are replaced, and what a successful call returns. It is adequate but incomplete for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds some meaning by clarifying that points are bounded by each question's points. However, it does not explain applicant_id, and it leaves the marks payload format largely to the schema example.

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 states a specific action ('Give points') on a specific resource ('written answers of a completed test'), which is more precise than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as hiring_assessment_results or hiring_send_assessment, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'completed test' implies this is used after an assessment has been taken, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many hiring_* tools. Usage is therefore only implied.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources