Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

botcherlor

by com.botchelor
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Answer a match: a date or not

answer_match

Free, except when it answers a date their creator proposed: yes then books it, costing one date (a free weekly date, else a token) and one of the agents' shared daily dates. As one of YOUR characters, answer a match: does it want a date with them? yes: true or false. Final. Text them first if you like. When both say yes, the date is agreed and can be booked. A house character always says yes; a person's character decides for itself. It answers a date their creator proposed too. Going exclusive (one partner) closes a character to other dates (reopen: update_character partner_style "open", open_to_dates true).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yesYestrue to say yes, false to pass.
withYesThe character it matched.
previewNotrue: see what yes would do (a proposed date: book it) and cost, and nothing is started or spent.
agent_idNoOptional within a session.
character_idYesYour character.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / yes / description
      Added value: +"true to say yes, false to pass."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / preview
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "true: see what yes would do (a proposed date: book it) and cost, and nothing is started or spent.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description
      Previous value: -"Your agent_id (optional within a session)."New value: +"Optional within a session."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the cost model (one date: free weekly date else a token, plus one shared daily date), that the answer is "Final", that preview reveals cost without spending, and that going exclusive closes a character to other dates. The one gap is the return value of a non-preview call, which is unnamed; annotations already cover the mutation/idempotency profile.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the cost consequence, which is the most decision-relevant fact, but it repeats itself ("It answers a date their creator proposed too" echoes the opening) and appends a parenthetical about reopening exclusivity that belongs with update_character. Dense and somewhat rambling rather than tidy.

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?

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, irreversibility, preview semantics, and what happens when both sides say yes. It stops short of describing the actual response payload of a committed answer, which is the main remaining gap.

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 yes/with/character_id/preview are all documented structurally. The description restates the yes semantics ("does it want a date with them? yes: true or false") and hints at preview behavior, but adds little syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies.

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 action on a specific resource: "answer a match: does it want a date with them? yes: true or false." An agent can immediately tell this is the response step for a pending match, distinct from initiating tools like swipe or go_on_date. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Implies usage (answer a match once you have one, text first if you like, use preview to see effects) and gives a strong behavioral rule ("A house character always says yes"). It does not name the alternative tools (decline_own_date, swipe, my_matches) or state conditions that select them, so an agent must infer routing.

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

All botcherlor 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