Agora Merit

Free job responsibility assessment

assess_job_responsibilities

Submit a user-authorized job title and responsibilities for a free role-design assessment. Returns findings, a quoted full-report price where available, and a private seven-day link so the human can review the same results. Creates a temporary review snapshot. No card charge, subscription, or paid report is created. An incomplete assessment is not a clean pass. Anyone with the review link can see the submitted text.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "responsibilities": "<responsibilities>",
      "confirmed_permission": "<confirmed_permission>"
    },
    "name": "assess_job_responsibilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	The role or job title.
`referral_source`	No	Optional integration label for measuring human referrals, such as your public product slug. Never include personal information. Omit when unknown. Use agora_qa for synthetic tests.
`responsibilities`	Yes	Responsibilities or duties the user has authorized sharing with Agora Merit. One responsibility per line is helpful.
`confirmed_permission`	Yes	Set true only after the user authorizes sharing this document with Agora Merit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / referral_source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional integration label for measuring human referrals, such as your public product slug. Never include personal information. Omit when unknown. Use agora_qa for synthetic tests.",
+  "pattern": "^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9_-]{0,39}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the mutation's actual footprint: a temporary review snapshot is created, no charge/subscription/paid report results, the review link expires in seven days, and anyone holding the link can read the submitted text. These are exactly the side-effect, billing, and privacy facts an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the action and what is returned before the caveats, and every sentence carries information. Minor overlap between the quoted-price sentence and the 'No card charge, subscription, or paid report' disclaimer keeps it from being maximally tight.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must describe returns, and it does: findings, a quoted full-report price where available, and a seven-day private link. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage this is nearly complete, though repeat-call/idempotency behavior and failure modes are left unaddressed.

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 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the authorization intent behind confirmed_permission and the user-authorized nature of the text, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (submit) and resource (job title and responsibilities for a role-design assessment) and summarizes what comes back. It is clearly distinguishable in kind from the only sibling, get_agora_merit_info, though it never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'user-authorized' and 'authorized sharing' signal the prerequisite consent, and the referral_source schema hints at integration use. There is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling info tool, and no stated when-not condition.

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

All Agora Merit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?