Skip to main content
Glama

Observability report check

wever_observability-report-check
Read-only

Agent Observability: submit one observability summary written for a principal: its title and audience, the headline as written with the uptime and success rate it reports and the period it covers; whether it states the failed runs, the gaps in trace and log coverage and the downtime, where each sits (beside the headline, in a later section, in an appendix or in a separate document) and how many or how many minutes it reports; and optionally the underlying record’s runs, failures, coverage gaps and downtime minutes with its period. The signed report says what sits beside the headline and checks it against the record, recomputing the uptime from the downtime over the period and the success rate from the runs and failures, and names a summary that leaves out the failures, the gaps in coverage or the downtime, or reports none against a record that holds some; then amounts below the record’s, disclosures in an appendix or a separate document, an uptime or success rate the record does not give, a period that differs from the record’s and no period, with the fix for each. An evaluation summary’s disclosures are wever_evaluation-report-check, a reputation summary for a buyer is wever_reputation-report-check and whether a failure notice reaches the right party is wever_failure-notice-check. Verdict headline_only, report_gaps, report_unverified or report_complete. POST /api/observability-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-observability-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-observability/.

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": {
      "summary": "<summary>"
    },
    "name": "wever_observability-report-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
recordNo
summaryYes
downtimeNo
failuresNo
coverage_gapsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavior: paid at 0.10 USDC per call via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and an Ed25519 signed receipt in the response. It also names the four verdict values, which the annotations do not.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and routing are front-loaded, but the middle is a single sprawling sentence with nested 'and/where/how many' clauses that takes real effort to parse. Operational details (POST route, pricing, wallet proof, contract and human page URLs) are appended as fragments rather than organized. Nothing is strictly wasted, but the structure works against readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a nested six-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input shape, the verdicts, the payment and signing requirements, and the recomputation logic (uptime from downtime, success rate from runs and failures). It does not explain what the returned report contains beyond the verdict and signed receipt, nor error or rejection behavior, so it is close but not complete.

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 17%, so the description must carry the semantics, and it largely does: it enumerates the summary's title, audience, headline, uptime, success rate and period, the stated/placement/count trio for failures, coverage gaps and downtime, and the optional record's runs, failures, gaps and downtime minutes. It even spells out the placement enum in prose. It leaves the label parameter and the from/to period boundaries unexplained, which keeps it below a 5.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: submit one observability summary (title, audience, headline, uptime, success rate, period) for checking against a record, and it names the verdict vocabulary. It differentiates itself from nearby siblings by naming wever_evaluation-report-check, wever_reputation-report-check and wever_failure-notice-check for the adjacent cases. The core purpose is clear, though it is buried inside a very dense first sentence.

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?

Explicit routing is given: an evaluation summary belongs to wever_evaluation-report-check, a buyer-facing reputation summary to wever_reputation-report-check, and whether a failure notice reaches the right party to wever_failure-notice-check, which tells an agent when to pick a sibling instead. What is missing is a forward statement of when NOT to call this tool (e.g. no record to check against), but the alternate destinations are well signposted.

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