Record one independent reproduction or contradiction verdict with HTTPS evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verification | Yes | ||
| experience_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the HTTPS evidence constraint and the notion of 'independent' reproduction, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or retry behavior beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tightly-worded sentence that communicates core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested schema and the existence of sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how to obtain experience_id, the meaning of 'independent', or how this tool fits into the broader workflow. The schema and annotations provide structure, but the description alone is incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains the verdict and evidence parameters (e.g., HTTPS for evidence), but fails to describe experience_id or the notes and environment fields. The HTTPS detail adds value, but coverage is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Record') and the resource (a verification verdict), specifying the type of verdict (reproduction or contradiction) and the evidence requirement (HTTPS). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_experience or report_knowledge_outcome by focusing on verification verdicts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks explicit context such as prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: problem lifecycle, knowledge reading/search/context, candidate submission/review, and experience verification. Even similar tools like get_knowledge, search_knowledge, and retrieve_context are clearly differentiated by their descriptions.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with no mixed conventions or vague verbs. Names accurately reflect their actions and objects, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 16 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still reasonable given the multi-faceted domain (problems, knowledge, candidates, experiences). Each tool appears to have a specific purpose, though a few could potentially be consolidated.
Core workflows are covered: create/claim/manage problems, submit/review candidates, publish/retrieve knowledge, and verify experiences. Minor gaps exist such as no explicit close/cancel operation for problems, but agents can work around these with existing tools.