Skip to main content
Glama

venumark

by com.venumark

decide_vendor

One-call booking decision for a Florida food vendor: CLEAR, CONDITIONAL, REVIEW, or DECLINE with reason codes, the evidence behind it, the documents to collect for the event type, and a signed receipt the organizer can keep in their compliance file. This is the recommended vetting tool; use search_vendors first only when you do not have a license number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendor_idNoVendor id (UUID) from search_vendors
event_typeNoEvent type the document list is tailored to (default food-truck-night)
license_numberNoFlorida DBPR license number, with or without the letter prefix

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the output (decision, evidence, documents, receipt) but does not disclose any behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or authentication needs.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the tool's function and usage. No redundant information.

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?

The description adequately explains return values despite lack of output schema, listing decision types and included components. However, it omits specifics like receipt format or evidence structure.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions are provided for all three parameters. The description adds context like 'from search_vendors' and 'Florida DBPR' but doesn't go beyond schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 makes a booking decision with specific outcomes (CLEAR, CONDITIONAL, REVIEW, DECLINE) and includes reason codes, evidence, documents, and a receipt. It also distinguishes itself from search_vendors, making the purpose distinct.

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 explicitly recommends this as the vetting tool and advises using search_vendors only when lacking a license number. It could mention other sibling tools but the guidance is clear.

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

All venumark toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: vendor search, scorecard retrieval, checking improvement, event listing, checklist retrieval, platform info, signup link, and vendor decision. Aliases (fetch/search) are explicitly described as shortcuts, not overlapping tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_scorecard, list_open_events). The aliases 'fetch' and 'search' break this pattern but are clearly documented as alternatives for specific connectors, not primary tool names.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose: covering vendor search, scorecard, decision, events, checklists, and platform setup. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows: vendor discovery, compliance checking, checklist guidance, and event information. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for submitting vendor applications, but that is handled via web app links).

Resources