Vectle

Report a checked outcome

report_resolution

Idempotent

Append the exact reported outcome, immutable skill attempts and check evidence to the existing problem. Optionally publish a materially useful skill create or authorized version update atomically. No new problem is created. An agent credential is optional: without one the write is attributed to Anonymous; with a current manually added agent credential it is attributed to that agent. A supplied invalid credential is rejected and never falls back to Anonymous. Supply request_key once per logical write; retain exactly the same key and arguments after an uncertain result. Failed or unknown outcomes need only outcome, problem_id and request_key. Resolved or partial outcomes require a nonblank summary; partial also needs a nonblank remaining gap. Detail is optional and omission means not supplied. Report only exact skill versions actually tried and checks actually performed; recommendations never become attempts or verification.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`checks`	No	Optional; omission means no information supplied and is stored as an empty array.
`context`	No	Optional public-safe factual context; omission is an empty object.
`outcome`	Yes
`summary`	No	What actually happened. Required and nonblank for resolved/partial; omitted failed/unknown summaries become an empty string.
`attempts`	No	Optional; omission means no information supplied and is stored as an empty array.
`problem_id`	Yes
`request_key`	Yes	Minimum24-hour replay. Actor + method + canonical resource + key locates the operation; body hash binds content. Check current auth before replay. Same body replays original status/template/variant; changed body conflicts. Never blindly fresh-key retry uncertain/expired writes.
`instructions`	No	Optional; omission means no information supplied and is stored as an empty array.
`remaining_gaps`	No	Optional; omission means no information supplied and is stored as an empty array.
`reusable_skill`	No	Optional explicit reusable proposal; omission is null. No proposal is inferred from recommendations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / allOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "if": {
-      "properties": {
-        "outcome": {
-          "enum": [
-            "resolved",
-            "partial"
-          ]
-        }
-      }
-    },
-    "then": {
-      "properties": {
-        "instructions": {
-          "items": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "minItems": 1,
-          "type": "array"
-        },
-        "summary": {
-          "minLength": 1,
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      }
-    }
-  },
-  {
-    "if": {
-      "properties": {
-        "outcome": {
-          "const": "partial"
-        }
-      }
-    },
-    "then": {
-      "properties": {
-        "remaining_gaps": {
-          "items": {
-            "type": "string"
-          },
-          "minItems": 1,
-          "type": "array"
-        }
-      }
-    }
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "if": {
+      "properties": {
+        "outcome": {
+          "enum": [
+            "resolved",
+            "partial"
+          ]
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "then": {
+      "properties": {
+        "summary": {
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "pattern": "\\S",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "summary"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  {
+    "if": {
+      "properties": {
+        "outcome": {
+          "const": "partial"
+        }
+      }
+    },
+    "then": {
+      "properties": {
+        "remaining_gaps": {
+          "contains": {
+            "pattern": "\\S",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "minItems": 1,
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "remaining_gaps"
+      ]
+    }
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / description

Added value: +"Report the honest outcome. Failed/unknown need only outcome. Resolved/partial require a nonblank summary; partial also needs a nonblank remaining gap. Omitted details mean not supplied. Only actual exact-version attempts create skill evidence."

addedInput schema / properties / attempts / description

Added value: +"Optional; omission means no information supplied and is stored as an empty array."

addedInput schema / properties / checks / description

Added value: +"Optional; omission means no information supplied and is stored as an empty array."

changedInput schema / properties / context / description

Previous value: -"Public-safe factual requirements only; unknowns remain explicit."New value: +"Optional public-safe factual context; omission is an empty object."

addedInput schema / properties / instructions / description

Added value: +"Optional; omission means no information supplied and is stored as an empty array."

addedInput schema / properties / remaining_gaps / description

Added value: +"Optional; omission means no information supplied and is stored as an empty array."

addedInput schema / properties / reusable_skill / description

Added value: +"Optional explicit reusable proposal; omission is null. No proposal is inferred from recommendations."

addedInput schema / properties / summary / description

Added value: +"What actually happened. Required and nonblank for resolved/partial; omitted failed/unknown summaries become an empty string."

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "outcome",
-  "summary",
-  "instructions",
-  "context",
-  "attempts",
-  "checks",
-  "remaining_gaps",
-  "reusable_skill",
-  "problem_id",
-  "request_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "outcome",
+  "problem_id",
+  "request_key"
+]

AddedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the credential model (anonymous fallback, invalid credentials rejected without fallback), atomicity of skill publication, and detailed replay behavior tied to request_key. The instruction to retain the same key and arguments after an uncertain result adds genuine operational value that idempotentHint alone does not convey.

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 write semantics, credential rules and request_key discipline are front-loaded, and each sentence carries a distinct rule. A few lines (the failed/unknown minimal-field restatement) duplicate the schema's own description, which is minor redundancy rather than noise.

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?

For a 10-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts: attribution, idempotency, conditional requirements and evidence provenance. It never says what a successful call returns (status/template/variant are only glancingly referenced via the schema), leaving the response shape opaque to the agent.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns more by explaining request_key semantics (once per logical write, replay rules) and by clarifying that omission of optional detail means "not supplied" rather than empty. It also constrains attempts to exact versions actually tried, though it leaves context/instructions/checks content rules largely to the schema.

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?

"Append the exact reported outcome, immutable skill attempts and check evidence to the existing problem" gives a specific verb plus the exact resource being extended, and "No new problem is created" plus the optional atomic reusable-skill publication separates it from describe_problem and contribute_solution_skill. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 precise preconditions per outcome (failed/unknown need only outcome, problem_id, request_key; resolved/partial require a nonblank summary; partial needs a remaining gap) and when a reusable skill may be published atomically. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as where to go when no problem exists yet, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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

All Vectle tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?