Skip to main content
Glama

venumark

by com.venumark

improve_my_score

For a Florida food truck or caterer checking their own record: what is currently limiting the VMScore letter grade, what to do about each item, official Florida DBPR resources, and a link to claim the free VenuMark vendor profile. Look up by license_number (MFD3953067 and 3953067 both work) or vendor_id from search_vendors. Organizers vetting a vendor for booking should use decide_vendor instead. Grades: A to F, plus HOLD (active DBPR license hold), Ungraded (insufficient record), and Withheld (license unconfirmed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vendor_idNoVendor id (UUID) from search_vendors
license_numberNoFlorida DBPR license number, with or without the letter prefix

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the tool's behavior: it retrieves limiting factors, action items, DBPR resources, and a link to claim a profile. It does not mention side effects, but the context suggests a read-only lookup, which is adequately clear.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and is fairly concise. It includes useful details but could be slightly trimmed by moving grade explanations to output context. Still well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description comprehensively covers return values: limiting factor, action items, DBPR resources, and profile link. It also explains grade meanings and provides alternative tool for organizers, making it complete for a lookup tool with two optional parameters.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds value by providing example formats for license_number (MFD3953067 or 3953067) and clarifying that vendor_id comes from search_vendors, which aids correct parameter usage.

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 is for Florida food truck/caterer checking their own VMScore, and distinguishes it from the sibling 'decide_vendor' tool. It specifies the verb 'improve' and the resource 'my score', with a clear target audience.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use (vendor checking own record) and when not to (organizers should use decide_vendor). Provides lookup method via license_number or vendor_id, including example formats.

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