Skip to main content
Glama

proofite

by com.proofite
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rate one story

rate_briefing_entry

Give a precise up/down signal on one story of a briefing: more like this, less like this, more technical, simpler, deeper, shorter, or mute its topics. These apply to the topics of that story, so the next briefing weighs them differently. A story usually has several topics: pass topics to hit only some of them (e.g. "less" of "demographics" but not of "japan"). Sending the same signal again with different topics REPLACES the previous one: the topics you drop are restored, nothing is double-counted. "follow" is different: it pins THIS story — from then on every development of this specific story (and only of it) gets a full entry flagged as an update; "unfollow" releases it. Pinned stories are listed by get_information_diet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signalYesThe signal to record
topicsNoOnly these topics of the story (as listed by get_briefing). Omit to apply to all of its topics.
entry_idYesEntry id from get_briefing
briefing_idNoWhich briefing. Omit for the latest.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / signal / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "more",
-  "less",
-  "more_technical",
-  "simpler",
-  "deeper",
-  "shorter",
-  "more_often",
-  "less_often",
-  "mute",
-  "follow"
-]New value: +[
+  "more",
+  "less",
+  "more_technical",
+  "simpler",
+  "deeper",
+  "shorter",
+  "more_often",
+  "less_often",
+  "mute",
+  "follow",
+  "unfollow"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / topics
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only these topics of the story (as listed by get_briefing). Omit to apply to all of its topics.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 5,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not idempotent. The description adds important behavioral details: the replacement semantics (sending the same signal with different topics replaces the previous one, dropping topics restores them), and the follow/unfollow behavior that pins a specific story for updates. It also clarifies that signals affect the next briefing's weighting. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph but is well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose, then explains topics, replacement, and follow semantics in a logical order. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key aspects: signals, topic targeting, replacement behavior, and follow/unfollow. It also notes that pinned stories are listed by get_information_diet, linking to a related tool. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without further clarification.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'topics' (omit to apply to all) and the nuanced behavior of 'signal' (especially follow/unfollow). It also explains the replacement behavior when resending with different topics. This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions, enriching the agent's understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: providing a precise up/down signal on one story of a briefing, with a list of specific signals (more, less, more_technical, etc.). It distinguishes the 'follow' and 'unfollow' behaviors as different, and references get_information_diet for listing pinned stories. This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation from siblings like tune_topic.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: how to target specific topics via the 'topics' parameter, how repeat signals replace previous ones, and the special semantics of 'follow' vs 'unfollow'. It also points to get_information_diet for pinned stories. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like tune_topic, though the intent is clear.

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

All proofite toolsInspect
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