Skip to main content
Glama

ChargerDojo

Run verdict

chargerdojo_get_run_verdict
Read-only

Read the verdict of one conformance run or charging journey on this account: how many checks passed, failed and warned, and whether anything graded at all. Production read-only runs name withheld writes as not tested with their reason. Answers: did this run pass.

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_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reportIdYesThe report id, as returned when the run started or by chargerdojo_list_runs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring a safe read, the description adds real behavioral context: production read-only runs mark withheld writes as not tested with a reason, and it explains the verdict's scope. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but it goes beyond the annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and result summary, then the production-run caveat and the question it answers. No filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return shape (counts and grading status) and a notable edge case for production read-only runs. Minor gaps around error responses or exact verdict fields are acceptable at this complexity.

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 100% for the single required reportId, including where to obtain it. The description does not add syntax or format details for that parameter, so the schema carries the parameter semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('verdict of one conformance run or charging journey') and enumerates the summary it returns: passed, failed, and warned counts plus whether anything graded. This makes it distinguishable from check-level or listing tools even without naming a sibling.

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?

It states the question the tool answers ('did this run pass'), which gives clear context for selecting it. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_run_checks for per-check detail, so it is not a 5.

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