Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChargerDojo

by com.chargerdojo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Failed checks and their clauses

chargerdojo_get_run_checks
Read-only

Read the checks of one conformance run on this account that failed, could not be graded or carried a warning, each with the rule it broke and the clause of the OCPI spec it was graded against, quoted. Answers: why did this run fail, and what does the spec say.

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": {
      "reportId": "<reportId>"
    },
    "name": "chargerdojo_get_run_checks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNoCursor from a previous call. Omit to start at the first check.
outcomeNoOnly checks with this outcome. Omit for failed, unobservable and warned.
reportIdYesThe report id, as returned by chargerdojo_list_runs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for going beyond it by describing what each returned item contains (the rule broken and the quoted OCPI clause) and the default filter set. No output schema exists, so this return-content disclosure is doing real work. Pagination behavior for the cursor is left to the schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the scope and payload come first, and the second sentence states the question the tool answers. Every clause carries information the agent needs to select the tool correctly.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it establishes the default subset, the returned fields, and the intent. The main residual gap is not clarifying how it differs from chargerdojo_list_checks, which shares its domain and could be confused with it.

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 all three parameters including the outcome enum values and the cursor are already documented in structured data, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the default outcome subset, which is marginally additive but largely duplicates the schema's own wording on `outcome`. Nothing is said about the `after` cursor beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Uses a specific verb (read) plus a precisely scoped resource: the checks of one conformance run, restricted to those that failed, could not be graded, or carried a warning, with the broken rule and quoted OCPI clause. The scope is unusually concrete and the return payload is characterized. It does not name the near-neighbor chargerdojo_list_checks, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Answers: why did this run fail, and what does the spec say" frames the question this tool exists to answer, which is strong implicit routing guidance. The default outcome subset is stated in prose and in the schema. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. for passing checks) is given.

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

All ChargerDojo 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