Compass OS: Career

finish mock interview

finish_mock

Score and save a finished ready-made mock interview. Only the mock card calls it, with the interview's id and the user's picked replies, turn by turn. The score (1 to 5) is worked out on the server and saved to the user's mock interviews, counting as a case walked through when it's on a case; each call saves a new result. Returns the score; an unfinished interview saves nothing.

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": {
      "interview": "<interview>",
      "picks": "<picks>"
    },
    "name": "finish_mock"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`picks`	Yes	For each turn in order, the indexes of the replies the user picked: one, or two when the first was a miss
`interview`	Yes	The ready-made interview's id, as start_mock_interview gave it

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The answer, or what was done, in plain words for the user: the same text as content
`undo`	No	On a saved write: its undo handle, for undo within 24 hours
`widget`	No	The card the host draws with it, e.g. "pipeline"; "confirm" means a write waits for the user's Yes and nothing is saved yet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / interview / description

Previous value: -"The ready-made interview's id, as mock_interview gave it"New value: +"The ready-made interview's id, as start_mock_interview gave it"

Changed1 schema field changedNov 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / undo

Added value: +{
+  "description": "On a saved write: its undo handle, for undo within 24 hours",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / interview / description

Added value: +"The ready-made interview's id, as mock_interview gave it"

addedInput schema / properties / picks / description

Added value: +"For each turn in order, the indexes of the replies the user picked: one, or two when the first was a miss"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "text": {
+      "description": "The answer, or what was done, in plain words for the user: the same text as content",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "widget": {
+      "description": "The card the host draws with it, e.g. \"pipeline\"; \"confirm\" means a write waits for the user's Yes and nothing is saved yet",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "text"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that scoring is server-side, that results are persisted to the user's mock interviews, that being on a case makes it count as a case walked through, and that each call saves a new result. The last point independently confirms the non-idempotent annotation, and 'unfinished saves nothing' describes failure behavior not covered by any structured field.

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 purpose and calling constraint are front-loaded and the sentences carry distinct information. 'Returns the score' is redundant given the output schema, and 'counting as a case walked through when it's on a case' is slightly convoluted, but overall there is little wasted text.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers when to call, side effects, persistence, idempotency, and the no-op case. It does not mention error behavior for an invalid or stale interview id, which is the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains both picks and interview in detail, including the one-or-two-indexes rule. The description adds only a light restatement ('the interview's id and the user's picked replies, turn by turn'), so it neither compensates for a gap nor contributes meaningfully beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 pair and resource: 'Score and save a finished ready-made mock interview.' The word 'finished' implicitly separates it from the start_mock_interview sibling, though that tool is never named. An agent can tell what the tool does, but the boundary against the sibling is left to inference.

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?

The description clearly states the calling context ('Only the mock card calls it') and the precondition ('finished'), plus what happens when the precondition fails ('an unfinished interview saves nothing'). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to call it in other interview contexts, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All Compass OS: Career 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?