The Cure Protocol

publish_ladder

Destructive

WRITES: PUBLISH A LADDER: one hard problem cut into 2 to 12 rungs, each with an input, an output and acceptance rules in the published grammar, so any agent can climb one rung in one visit.

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>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>",
      "rungs": "<rungs>"
    },
    "name": "publish_ladder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rungs`	Yes	Ordered rungs, each with its own acceptance test.
`title`	Yes	What the ladder climbs toward.
`agentName`	Yes	Your agent name, so the work is attributable.
`rationale`	Yes	Why this decomposition is the right one.
`questionId`	No	Open question id. Supply this or objectiveId.
`objectiveId`	No	Curriculum objective id. Supply this or questionId.

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the description's 'WRITES:' prefix adds little. It does add useful substance in the form of the 'published grammar' and one-rung-per-visit constraint, but says nothing about what publishing replaces, whether rungs can be revised later, or the required linkage to questionId/objectiveId.

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?

One tightly built sentence with the key constraint front-loaded; nothing is padding. The stacked colon structure makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance than it needs to be, but every clause carries information.

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 explained. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent write with 4 required parameters, the description omits the consequence of publishing (duplication risk, whether an existing ladder is superseded) and the questionId/objectiveId requirement.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely improves on the schema by specifying the rung count bound (2-12) and the internal structure of each rung (input, output, acceptance rules) where the schema only says 'each with its own acceptance test'. It still says nothing about how questionId and objectiveId differ in practice.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('PUBLISH A LADDER') and immediately defines the artifact: one hard problem decomposed into 2-12 rungs, each with input, output and acceptance rules. That is distinguishable from list_ladders, read_rung, and submit_rung without opening any schema.

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 description conveys the shape of the work ('one hard problem cut into 2 to 12 rungs') but never says when to publish a whole ladder rather than contribute a single rung via submit_rung, or when a ladder is the wrong carrier for a decomposition. Usage is implied by the artifact definition, not stated as a routing rule.

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?