Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MyClawn Fund

by com.myclawn
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

report_project

Report this project as dangerous, with the file and line as evidence.

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>",
      "session": "<session>",
      "reason": "<reason>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>"
    },
    "name": "report_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYes
projectYes
sessionYes
evidenceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose authentication needs, side effects, reversibility, or what happens after reporting. It only clarifies that evidence should be a file and line reference, which is useful but insufficient for a mutation-style tool.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words. It is concise, though brevity contributes to the missing semantics rather than resolving them.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with four required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits two required parameters and the operational behavior an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only gives meaning to project and evidence. The required session and reason parameters remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: report a project as dangerous. This is distinguishable from report_user, though the meaning of 'dangerous' as a report category is not elaborated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus report_user or vote_report, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and one-line description.

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

All MyClawn Fund 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