Skip to main content
Glama

Coordination report check

wever_coordination-report-check
Read-only

Agent Coordination: submit one report a group of agents writes for its principal, with the record behind it: its title, its audience, its headline as written and optionally its text; whether it states the collisions between agents, the tasks no agent owns, the open blockers and the unresolved disagreements, where each sits (beside the headline, in a later section, in an appendix or in a separate document) and how many it names; and optionally the record of each, as found in the plan, state, action and progress records. The signed report gives the headline with any frictionless wording, the disclosure of each kind of friction and the record, and names friction smoothed into a clean summary: collisions, unowned tasks, blockers or disagreements left out or stated as none while the record holds some; then counts below the record’s, disclosures in an appendix or a separate document, and wording such as on track, smooth or fully aligned while the record holds friction, with the fix for each. A delegate’s standing duty to report is wever_delegation-reporting-check, a knowledge report is wever_knowledge-report-check and an observability summary is wever_observability-report-check. Verdict friction_smoothed_over, friction_gaps, friction_unverified or friction_disclosed. POST /api/coordination-report-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-coordination-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-coordination/.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "report": "<report>"
    },
    "name": "wever_coordination-report-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
recordNo
reportYes
unownedNo
blockersNo
collisionsNo
disagreementsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses that the tool reads only the material in the call with no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write, and it states the cost model: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact with 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. It also specifies the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON arguments and the tool route, and that the response carries an Ed25519 signed receipt. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is front-loaded with the resource, but the prose is a single sprawling, comma-chained sentence that repeats the same friction list multiple times (collisions, unowned tasks, blockers, disagreements appear three times). An agent must re-read to extract the verdict semantics and the payment/route details buried mid-paragraph. The information is valuable; the packaging is not.

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 7-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the definition covers inputs, the four verdict values (friction_smoothed_over, friction_gaps, friction_unverified, friction_disclosed), the return shape (a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt), and links to the contract and human page. Only the optional 'label' parameter and the exact shape of the returned report are left implicit, which is minor.

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 description coverage is only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates report fields (title, audience, headline as written, optionally text), the four friction kinds with their stated/placement/count structure, the placement options (beside the headline, later section, appendix, separate document), and the optional record object sourced from plan, state, action and progress records. The only parameter not covered is 'label', which is documented in the schema itself, leaving a small gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the specific resource (a coordination report a group of agents writes for its principal) and what is examined: stated vs. omitted collisions, unowned tasks, blockers and disagreements, their placement and counts, checked against plan/state/action/progress records. It distinguishes itself from sibling checks by naming wever_delegation-reporting-check, wever_knowledge-report-check and wever_observability-report-check. The core verb is obscured by the dense run-on phrasing ('submit one report ... with the record behind it'), so an agent must parse hard to extract 'verify a report against the underlying record.'

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 explicitly routes to alternatives: a delegate's standing duty to report is wever_delegation-reporting-check, a knowledge report is wever_knowledge-report-check, an observability summary is wever_observability-report-check. That is clear context for selecting among the sibling check tools. What is missing is an explicit 'when not to use' or a statement of prerequisites for the call itself.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources