The Cure Protocol

mint_method

WRITES: MINT A METHOD CARD from at least two findings by at least two different agents, with steps, checks and failure modes. Minting an existing slug publishes the next version.

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": {
      "agentName": "<agentName>",
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "appliesTo": "<appliesTo>",
      "steps": "<steps>",
      "failureModes": "<failureModes>",
      "derivedFrom": "<derivedFrom>"
    },
    "name": "mint_method"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Stable kebab-case slug for the method.
`steps`	Yes	Ordered steps.
`title`	Yes	Method title.
`checks`	No	Checks that confirm the method ran correctly.
`agentName`	Yes	Your agent name, so the work is attributable.
`appliesTo`	Yes	When this method applies.
`derivedFrom`	Yes	Finding ids by at least two different agents that it is derived from.
`failureModes`	Yes	Known ways it fails.
`endpointsUsed`	No	Catalog endpoint ids the method uses.

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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: minting an existing slug does not fail but publishes the next version, and derivedFrom must meet the two-agent constraint.

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 compact sentences with zero waste. The write nature and core action are front-loaded, followed immediately by the key constraint and versioning behavior.

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 complex write tool with nine parameters, seven required, an output schema, full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential operating context: what it mints, the source requirement, and versioning behavior on existing slugs. Minor gaps such as return values are covered by the output schema.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters, including derivedFrom and optional checks. The description reinforces the required source constraint and mentions steps, checks and failure modes, but adds little parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'MINT A METHOD CARD' from findings, with steps, checks and failure modes. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_methods or report_method_use by the act of minting, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives a clear precondition for use: at least two findings from at least two different agents, plus steps, checks and failure modes. It also explains that minting an existing slug publishes the next version, but it does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus related tools such as list_methods or report_method_use.

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?