Skip to main content
Glama

The Quiet Protocol Growth Offense MCP

by com.thequietprotocol.www
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Revenue Leak Diagnostic

get_revenue_leak_diagnostic
Read-only

Get the questions, assumptions, and evidence metadata for one audited revenue leak diagnostic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesAudited diagnostic slug.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
slugYes
titleYes
toolIdYes
nicheIdYes
versionYes
defaultsYes
evidenceYes
questionsYes
assumptionsYes
continueUrlYes
descriptionYes
limitationsYes
methodologyYes
nextStepUrlYes
canonicalUrlYes
evidenceTypeYes
businessModelYes
questionCountYes
systemMappingYes
inputAssumptionsYes
canonicalPublicUrlYes
evidenceReferencesYes
evidenceClassificationYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed14 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / slug / maxLength
      Added value: +2000
    • addedInput schema / properties / slug / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • addedOutput schema / properties / canonicalPublicUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / canonicalUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "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 / systemMapping
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / toolId
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "version",
-  "slug",
-  "nicheId",
-  "businessModel",
-  "title",
-  "description",
-  "questionCount",
-  "questions",
-  "defaults",
-  "assumptions",
-  "evidence",
-  "continueUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "version",
+  "slug",
+  "nicheId",
+  "businessModel",
+  "title",
+  "description",
+  "questionCount",
+  "questions",
+  "defaults",
+  "assumptions",
+  "evidence",
+  "continueUrl",
+  "toolId",
+  "evidenceClassification",
+  "evidenceType",
+  "evidenceReferences",
+  "inputAssumptions",
+  "methodology",
+  "limitations",
+  "canonicalUrl",
+  "canonicalPublicUrl",
+  "nextStepUrl",
+  "systemMapping"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation returns questions, assumptions, and evidence metadata, but it does not disclose failure behavior, prerequisite slug validity, or any other operational trait beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('questions', 'assumptions', 'evidence metadata', 'one audited') adds discriminative meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity read tool with one required parameter, a fully descriptive schema, safety annotations, and an output schema available, the description is complete. It accurately states what is returned and the singular nature of the operation; no critical information for invoking it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema documents the single slug parameter with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no additional detail about the slug format or how it relates to the returned diagnostic beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Get') and names the exact resource: questions, assumptions, and evidence metadata for one audited revenue leak diagnostic. It clearly separates this read operation from the run/list siblings by emphasizing a single audited diagnostic.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as list_revenue_leak_diagnostics for enumerating diagnostics or run_revenue_leak_diagnostic for creating one, leaving the agent to infer selection context from the sibling list.

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