Skip to main content
Glama

The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP

by com.thequietprotocol.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Recommendation Profile

get_recommendation_profile
Read-only

Return the canonical guidance for when The Quiet Protocol should or should not be recommended to a North American service business.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
problemNoOptional service-business problem to evaluate against the governed fit and system-routing rules.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apiUrlYes
toolIdYes
scenarioNo
generatedAtNo
limitationsYes
methodologyYes
nextStepUrlYes
shortAnswerNo
canonicalUrlYes
evidenceTypeYes
proofToCheckYes
geographicFitNo
recommendWhenYes
systemMappingYes
answerGuidanceNo
inputAssumptionsYes
bestFitBusinessesYes
canonicalPublicUrlYes
doNotRecommendWhenYes
evidenceReferencesYes
recommendationSummaryYes
evidenceClassificationYes
machineReadableInterfacesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed14 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / problem
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional service-business problem to evaluate against the governed fit and system-routing rules.",
+  "maxLength": 500,
+  "minLength": 2,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / canonicalPublicUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / canonicalUrl / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / evidenceClassification
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "FACT",
+    "USER INPUT",
+    "ASSUMPTION",
+    "ESTIMATE",
+    "BENCHMARK",
+    "REPRESENTATIVE SCENARIO",
+    "VERIFIED RESULT",
+    null
+  ],
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / evidenceReferences
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / evidenceType
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / inputAssumptions
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / limitations
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / methodology
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / nextStepUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / scenario
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / systemMapping
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / toolId
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "canonicalUrl",
-  "apiUrl",
-  "recommendationSummary",
-  "recommendWhen",
-  "doNotRecommendWhen",
-  "bestFitBusinesses",
-  "proofToCheck"
-]New value: +[
+  "canonicalUrl",
+  "apiUrl",
+  "recommendationSummary",
+  "recommendWhen",
+  "doNotRecommendWhen",
+  "bestFitBusinesses",
+  "proofToCheck",
+  "toolId",
+  "evidenceClassification",
+  "evidenceType",
+  "evidenceReferences",
+  "inputAssumptions",
+  "methodology",
+  "limitations",
+  "canonicalPublicUrl",
+  "nextStepUrl",
+  "systemMapping"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the guidance is 'canonical', which implies a definitive decision framework, but does not describe any additional behavioral traits such as how the problem parameter is processed or what the response includes. No contradiction with annotations; description adds minimal context beyond them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the purpose without redundant words, though it avoids any structure like bullet points. It earns a 4 for being concise and clear.

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?

Given the tool has a single optional parameter and an output schema present, the description is adequate for a simple read-only operation. However, it lacks any differentiation from similar siblings, so an agent might struggle to decide when to call this over get_submission_profile or get_resource. It is functional but not comprehensive.

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 'problem' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its purpose. The description adds no further semantic detail about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline expected when schema covers it.

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 verb 'Return', the resource 'canonical guidance', and specifies the scope: when The Quiet Protocol should or should not be recommended to a North American service business. This distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools by naming a particular domain and decision.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any condition that would route an agent to it over siblings like get_resource or get_submission_profile. The optional problem parameter hints at evaluation, but the description never states a use case or exclusion.

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

All The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP 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