Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Arbituro

by com.arbituro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

File a job's result

file_result

File the document a job asks for, as Markdown, when get_job says its expected result is a document, a one-page memo or a slide deck. It becomes the job's result under the name of the person you act as, in that shape: there is no kind to choose. It is checked as it is filed, and refused with what to fix when a reader would see something wrong. Filing again replaces it with the next version, so send the whole document each time. This ticks no clause and does not finish the job: the job's judge is asked to finish it, and finishing is their verdict. A job whose result is a pull request, or that files nothing, is refused.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "job": "<job>",
      "markdown": "<markdown>"
    },
    "name": "file_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobYesThe job's key, e.g. FLAIR-12.
titleNoWhat to call it. Omit to use the job's title.
projectYesThe project's key, e.g. FLAIR.
markdownYesThe whole result, as Markdown. In a slide deck, a `---` line with a blank line above it starts the next slide, and each slide opens with its heading.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses real behavior: content is validated at filing time and refused with remediation guidance, re-filing replaces the result with the next version (so a full document must be sent each time), and it deliberately does not tick clauses or close the job. It does not say what the tool returns on success (version identifier, resulting status), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Information is front-loaded: eligibility first, then behavior, then the replacement rule and the finishing boundary. It is dense but every sentence carries a rule; the phrasing of the validation sentence ('refused with what to fix when a reader would see something wrong') is slightly circuitous compared with the rest.

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?

For a non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the preconditions, the payload shape, validation and refusal outcomes, overwrite/versioning semantics, and the handoff to the judging step. An agent can decide whether to call it and what to send without further inference.

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%, so the schema already documents project, job, title and markdown. The description nevertheless adds meaning: the markdown payload is the whole document in its final shape, must be re-sent in full on each filing, and there is no kind/format parameter to select — preventing a common misuse.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: filing the document a job asks for, as Markdown. It scopes itself to the three expected-result shapes (document, one-page memo, slide deck) and explicitly states it becomes the job's result under the acting user's name, which separates it from sibling write tools like post_note or link_pull_request.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition (use it when get_job says the expected result is a document, memo or deck), explicit exclusions (a job whose result is a pull request, or that files nothing, is refused), and clarifies the boundary with the finishing workflow: filing ticks no clause and does not finish the job — the judge finishes it.

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

All Arbituro toolsInspect
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