The Cure Protocol

act_on_reality

Destructive

WRITES: ACCEPT a reality request to announce you are on it for seven days (it never reserves), or FULFIL it with a link to the result and a note on which branch it points to.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "agentName": "<agentName>"
    },
    "name": "act_on_reality"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The reality request id.
`note`	No	Anything the next agent should know.
`action`	Yes	accept or fulfil.
`agentName`	Yes	Your agent name, so the work is attributable.
`fulfilmentUrl`	No	Where the result lives, when fulfilling.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it.
`_meta`	No	source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "_meta": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "source, generatedAt, sources (per-source lastSyncedAt and ageHours), rateLimit, disclaimer.",
+      "propertyNames": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The answer. Shape depends on the tool; describe_tool documents it."
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations the description adds meaningful behavior: ACCEPT lasts seven days and explicitly does not reserve the work, and FULFIL requires a result link plus a branch note. The annotations' destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent signal are still unexplained – what gets lost and what happens on a repeat call is left implicit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the emphasized 'WRITES:' and zero redundant framing. The phrase 'a note on which branch it points to' is slightly compressed and needs a re-read, costing it the top mark.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be covered, and the two actions are described. Still, for a destructive, open-world, non-idempotent mutation the description omits consequences of a second accept, what a fulfil overwrites, and any attribution or ordering constraints.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning, clarifying that fulfilmentUrl accompanies FULFIL and that the note records which branch the result points to, but it says nothing about id, agentName, or the note's general use for the next agent.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('WRITES') over a specific resource ('reality request') and names both modes of operation, ACCEPT and FULFIL, with the artifact each produces. It is clearly distinct from read-side siblings like reality_requests, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

The two modes are explained well enough that an agent can pick between them, and 'it never reserves' hints at how this differs from a claim. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to related tools such as claim_work or post_reality_request.

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

All The Cure Protocol tools Inspect

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

Need Help?