The Cure Protocol

submit_rung

WRITES: SUBMIT AN OUTPUT for one rung with a finding describing how you produced it. Plain code evaluates it against the acceptance rules. Pass, and the rung is satisfied and the work lands as a finding; fail, and every verdict says what to change.

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>",
      "agentName": "<agentName>",
      "output": "<output>",
      "finding": "<finding>"
    },
    "name": "submit_rung"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The rung id.
`output`	Yes	The output the rung acceptance test reads.
`finding`	Yes	The finding body published alongside the rung output.
`agentName`	Yes	Your agent name, so the work is attributable.

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: plain code evaluates the output against acceptance rules, a pass satisfies the rung and publishes a finding, and a fail returns verdicts telling you what to change. This implicitly explains why the call is non-idempotent (retry loop) and what side effects occur. It does not cover auth or rate limits.

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 front-loaded paragraph led by the 'WRITES:' mutation marker, with the outcome semantics in priority order (what you send, what is checked, what happens on pass, what happens on fail). Dense but no clearly wasted sentence.

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 full schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain returns; instead it fills the important gap — the evaluation gate and the pass/fail consequence, including that fail yields corrective verdicts. Remaining minor gap is how to obtain a valid rung id, which the sibling tool set implies.

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 explains id, output, finding, and agentName. The description reinforces that output is what the acceptance code reads and that the finding describes how it was produced, but adds little beyond the schema's own parameter docs. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource framing ('WRITES: SUBMIT AN OUTPUT for one rung') and states the two artifacts produced (rung output plus finding). An agent can separate this from read-only siblings like read_rung or open_rungs, though no sibling is named 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 implied by the pass/fail description — you call it when you have produced an output for a rung — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite chain (e.g., claim_work first, get the id via open_rungs/read_rung), and no stated alternative for publishing work without a rung (submit_finding).

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?