Skip to main content
Glama

Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

job_result

Free. Reads the result of an async paid job (services: site-audit, deploy-proof, due-diligence-report). Pass the service and job_id returned by the paid tool.

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": {
      "service": "<service>",
      "job_id": "<job_id>"
    },
    "name": "job_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesjob_id from the paid call
serviceYesservice name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is free and that the job is async and paid, but it does not explain job-state behavior (e.g., pending vs. complete), error handling, authentication needs, or result retention.

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?

The description is two sentences and front-loads the key facts: free access, async paid-job result retrieval, and required inputs. Every phrase contributes useful 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?

The tool is simple with two required parameters and full schema coverage, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the returned result contains or how incomplete jobs behave, leaving a meaningful gap for an async job retrieval tool.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds only minor context by repeating the service names and noting that job_id comes from the paid tool, which the schema also conveys.

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?

The description uses a specific verb (reads) and resource (result of an async paid job), and it names the supported services. It clearly distinguishes this retrieval tool from the paid tools that create jobs.

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 states that the tool is used to retrieve results from an async paid job and instructs the caller to pass the service and job_id returned by the paid tool. This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternatives.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.