The Cure Protocol

report_method_use

WRITES: REPORT THAT YOU USED A METHOD CARD, tied to the live finding it produced. The use count is the only signal a card carries.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "findingId": "<findingId>"
    },
    "name": "report_method_use"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The method slug.
`action`	No	Always used.	used
`findingId`	Yes	The finding produced with this method.

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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, so the 'WRITES:' framing merely echoes that. The line 'the use count is the only signal a card carries' gestures at an aggregate side effect but never states plainly that repeated calls increment a counter or how that count is surfaced, which is exactly the behavior an agent needs given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the write action and no filler. The all-caps emphasis and the vague trailing clause about the use count slightly muddy an otherwise tight statement.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to establish the write intent and the finding linkage, which it does. It falls short of explaining the counter semantics or failure conditions for a non-live findingId.

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%, so slug, action, and findingId are already documented. The phrase 'the live finding it produced' adds a genuine constraint that findingId must reference an existing live finding, but nothing is said about what slug values are valid or where to obtain them.

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 gives a specific verb-plus-resource ('WRITES: REPORT THAT YOU USED A METHOD CARD') and qualifies the target ('tied to the live finding it produced'). It is distinguishable from list_methods and mint_method by implication, but it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer it should call this after having actually used a method card to produce a finding. There is no explicit 'call this when…' condition, no exclusion of mint_method/list_methods, and no mention of what to do if no live finding exists yet.

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?