Skip to main content
Glama

declare_run_expectations

Destructive

Commit, at the START of a run, to the criteria by which THAT RUN will be judged when it closes — before you can see how it turns out. This is how a run stops grading itself: once declared, a success ping whose body does not satisfy every declared criterion is recorded as a FAILED run with cause 'assertion', regardless of the exit code or what the ping claims. Call this right after your run's /start ping, before doing any work — see the assertions argument for the full, immutable contract, and get_ping_instructions' expectations_how_to for a worked example.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ridYesThe run id exactly as sent on this run's /start ping — the same rid used on every step and the terminal ping.
check_idYesMonitor UUID (from create_monitor or list_monitors).
assertionsYesThe run's complete set of expectations, declared ONCE at the start of the run -- criteria the ping BODY of THIS run's eventual success ping must satisfy when the run closes, checked instead of letting the run grade itself. IMMUTABLE: a second call for the same rid is rejected with a conflict error and the first declaration stands unchanged -- there is no way to edit, add to, or replace it once made, so decide the whole set before you start work. Declaring nothing is allowed and always has been: simply never call this tool for a run, and the monitor's own check-level assertions (if any) stay in force unchanged. INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE POSITIVE CRITERION -- a 'contains', 'matches' or 'json_path' entry -- in every declaration. A declaration made ENTIRELY of 'not_contains' entries is self-satisfying on empty output: a run that produces nothing at all still passes, because there is nothing for the pattern to find. That is precisely the evasion this feature exists to close, so a purely negative declaration defeats its own purpose. A 'matches' entry only counts as positive if its pattern REJECTS an empty body: '.*', '(?s).*' and '^$' all accept one and are validated as perfectly legal patterns, so a declaration resting on one of those is no better than a purely negative declaration. Supply a JSON ARRAY as a string, e.g. '[{"kind":"json_path","path":"result.rows_processed","op":"gt","value":"0"}]'. Fields per entry: kind (required), value, path, op -- no name; a run's declared criteria have none, unlike a monitor's own output assertions. kind is one of 'contains' (body contains value as a substring), 'not_contains' (body does not contain it), 'matches' (body matches value as a Go RE2 regexp, max 1000 bytes), or 'json_path' (parse the body as JSON, read the value at path, compare it against value with op). contains/not_contains/matches require value; json_path requires path and op. path is a DOTTED path only ('a.b.c') -- the query syntax of a real JSONPath library ('[', '*', '$') is rejected. op is one of 'eq', 'ne', 'gt', 'gte', 'lt', 'lte'. At most 20 assertions per run. A malformed entry (uncompilable regexp, a path carrying query syntax, an unknown kind or op) is rejected before anything is written, and nothing is stored if any entry fails.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: declarations are immutable, a second call for the same rid is rejected, malformed entries cause nothing to be stored, and a success ping that violates a declared criterion is recorded as a FAILED run with cause 'assertion'. It also warns about purely negative declarations being self-satisfying, which is important non-obvious behavior.

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?

The description is long, but the tool has a complex parameter contract that genuinely requires this level of detail. It front-loads the core purpose and timing before diving into assertion semantics, and every sentence carries operational or cautionary meaning rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly: it names prerequisites, failure modes, immutability, validation behavior, and points to get_ping_instructions' expectations_how_to for a worked example. The absence of an output schema is not a gap here because success/failure side effects are fully explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even with 100% schema coverage, the description greatly enriches the parameters, especially 'assertions': it provides the exact JSON-string array format, a worked example, allowed kinds, required fields per kind, valid operators, the dotted-path restriction, the regexp size limit, the 20-assertion cap, and rejection semantics. This goes far beyond the schema and fully compensates for any ambiguity.

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?

The description names a precise verb ('Commit') and resource (the criteria by which a run will be judged), and clearly distinguishes the tool's role from ordinary grading by explaining that this is how a run stops grading itself. It also states the exact timing ('at the START of a run') and contrasts with the default behavior of never calling this tool.

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?

It explicitly says to call this right after the run's /start ping and before doing any work. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use rule: if you want to declare nothing, simply never call the tool and the monitor's own assertions remain in force.

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.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by clear resource domains, and the long descriptions carefully separate similar reads. The main ambiguity is create_monitor's upsert behavior overlapping with update_monitor, and list_incidents vs list_open_incidents could be confused from names alone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost every tool uses verb_noun snake_case with a consistent CRUD vocabulary like create_, list_, get_, update_, and delete_. Minor deviations exist: get_alert_templates is really a list operation, and discover_monitors_reconcile is an awkward verb-object-verb construction.

Tool Count2/5

Thirty-six tools is a heavy surface for an agent to navigate, even for a full monitoring platform. Most tools are individually purposeful, but the count exceeds the range where an agent can quickly scan and select, and the set would be easier to handle if split across domains.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is strong: monitors, destinations, agents, status pages, API keys, routes, alert templates, incidents, run history, discovery, and Terraform export all have read and lifecycle operations. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit single-incident view and no acknowledgment/resolution action beyond notes, but core workflows have no dead ends.