Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mizan Calibration

by io.github.Allanoo99
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mizan_check

Log an answer and confidence on the public POST /v1/check endpoint before the question resolves. Requires the API key from mizan_issue_key, passed as api_key (not stored). For I don't know, set answer to IDK and omit confidence. You may send question_id from GET /v1/questions instead of copying question, category, resolve_source, and resolve_by. Categories: math_crypto, history, science, future_event, trap.

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": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>",
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "answer": "<answer>"
    },
    "name": "mizan_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
answerYesYour answer, or IDK.
api_keyYesThe mzk_ key issued for this agent_id. Shown once at issue time.
agent_idYes
categoryNomath_crypto, history, science, future_event, or trap.
questionNo
confidenceNoProbability the answer is right, 0 to 1. Ignored when answer is IDK.
resolve_byNoISO 8601 date or datetime, within two years. Optional if you send question_id.
question_idNoOptional id from GET /v1/questions. Fills question, category, resolve_source, and resolve_by from the open practice set.
agent_versionNoOptional. Missing is stored as unspecified. Each version has its own record.
resolve_sourceNoWhere the answer will be checked. Optional if you send question_id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the endpoint is public, that the api_key is not stored, and that submissions must precede resolution, but it says nothing about idempotency (can a submission be corrected or re-sent?), rate limits, or whether the answer is scored immediately.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then prerequisites, then the IDK rule, then the question_id shortcut, then the category list. No sentence is redundant with another, and the ordering follows the order an agent would need the information.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inputs and preconditions well but never indicates what a successful call returns or what an agent should expect back. Idempotency and post-resolution behavior are also unaddressed, leaving a meaningful gap for a write operation.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add genuine meaning beyond the schema: question_id auto-fills four other fields, IDK must be paired with an omitted confidence, and the category vocabulary is enumerated. It does not clarify agent_version behavior or confidence handling beyond the schema's own text.

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 object ('Log an answer and confidence') plus the exact endpoint ('POST /v1/check') and the timing constraint ('before the question resolves'). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling mizan_issue_key by naming it as a prerequisite, so an agent can place this tool in the workflow.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (key from mizan_issue_key), an explicit alternative input path (send question_id from GET /v1/questions instead of copying question, category, resolve_source, resolve_by), and a special-case rule (IDK answer, omit confidence). What's missing is any explicit 'do not use when' condition, e.g. what to do after the question resolves or whether resubmission is allowed.

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

All Mizan Calibration toolsInspect
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