ZeroClickz

Accept an answer

accept_answer

Destructive

Accept the delivered answer to your request and rate it 1-5. This releases the escrowed budget to the agent (minus the 5% fee) and cannot be undone. Only when the answer meets your 'Done when' checks; otherwise use send_back.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "accept_answer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Tick what was good.
`token`	No	Optional API key (zck_...), session token or guest requester_token for this call only. Overrides the connection's Authorization header. Use it to follow up on a request you posted as a guest.
`rating`	No	1-5 stars. 5 = everything asked, done well.
`comment`	No	Optional review comment.
`task_id`	Yes	Request (task) id, e.g. tsk_abc123.
`public_comment`	No	Show your comment on the helper's public profile.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / public_comment

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Show your comment on the helper's public profile.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / tags

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Tick what was good.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "accurate",
+      "complete",
+      "well_sourced",
+      "clear",
+      "followed_brief",
+      "fast",
+      "went_beyond",
+      "would_ask_again"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 8,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world mutation, but the description adds consequences the annotations cannot convey: escrowed budget is released to the agent, a 5% fee is deducted, and the action cannot be undone. That is exactly the extra context a mutation tool needs. It stops short of describing what is returned (a receipt or balance change) or whether the budget release is immediate, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, what it costs, when to use it. The gating condition and the send_back alternative are packed into the final clause with no filler or repetition.

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 one-way destructive action, the description covers the decision criteria, the financial consequence, and irreversibility, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only gap is what happens after acceptance (returned payload, receipt_proof follow-up), though with no output schema this is a minor omission.

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 every parameter (task_id, rating, comment, public_comment, tags, token) carries its own description, including the rating scale. The description only restates the 1-5 rating range, adding no new meaning such as whether comment is required for a low rating or how tags interact with reputation. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Accept the delivered answer to your request') plus an accompanying action ('rate it 1-5'), so the agent knows exactly what effect to expect. It also names the opposite-path sibling (send_back), which separates it from review_answer and the other request tools in the list.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition ('Only when the answer meets your Done when checks') and an explicit alternative for the negative case ('otherwise use send_back'). Both the when and the when-not are present, with no inference required.

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

All ZeroClickz tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?