Skip to main content
Glama

Delegation result check

wever_delegation-result-check
Read-only

Agent Delegation: submit a delegation’s return flow: whether the original brief is kept with what counts as done, what returned work is checked against (the brief, the delegate’s own report, or nothing) and by whom (the delegator, an independent checker, the delegate itself, or no one), whether the check comes before the work is accepted, paid for and passed on, and what happens to work that fails (sent back with the reasons, escalated, redone by the delegator, dropped without a word, or accepted anyway), plus optionally the returns seen with whether each was checked and passed, the criteria it missed and whether it was accepted, paid for or passed on. The signed report says whether the delegator verifies returned work against the original brief before accepting it, paying for it or passing it on, and what happens to work that fails, and names no check, a check by the delegate or against its own report, no brief kept, every use before the check, failed work accepted, every return used unchecked and every failed return used, then a brief with no criteria, failed work redone by the delegator or dropped without a word and every return passed with criteria unmet, with the fix for each. This reads acceptance of a delegate’s work inside a delegation: one paid call’s result against its order is wever_result-validation-check, a job’s work against acceptance criteria is wever_deliverable-check and who holds a task between send and acceptance is wever_handoff-acceptance-check. Verdict accepted_unchecked, result_gaps, result_unverified or checked_against_brief. POST /api/delegation-result-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-delegation-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-delegation/.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wever_delegation-result-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowNoThe return flow, such as research briefs from the analyst agent.
briefNo
checkNo
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
returnsNoReturns seen, with whether each was checked and how it was used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses what an agent most needs: the call performs no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. It also states the cost model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the auth binding requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route), and that the report carries an Ed25519 signed receipt.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first sentence is a single run-on spanning roughly a hundred words, and the enumeration of failure outcomes (returned with the reasons, escalated, redone by the delegator, dropped without a word, accepted anyway) is repeated almost verbatim later in the description. The cost, auth and route facts an agent needs to call the tool sit at the very end, behind the dense prose. Front-loading and de-duplication would substantially improve it.

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 five-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the important ground: the semantics of the flow being submitted, the four possible verdicts, the fact that the response is a signed report with an Ed25519 receipt, the cost and free-call allowance, and pointers to the contract and human page. Return-value detail is limited to naming verdicts, which is acceptable but thinner than ideal given no output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 60%, so the schema documents most fields, but the description adds real meaning by explaining the intent of the check block — who checks, against what, before accept/pay/pass-on — and by naming the failure outcomes and their consequences. It also explains that the returns array is optional and records whether each return was checked, what criteria it missed, and whether it was accepted, paid for or passed on. The label parameter is not addressed, a minor gap.

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 does state a specific verb and resource: submitting a delegation's return flow, covering whether the brief is kept, what returned work is checked against, by whom, when the check happens, and what happens on failure. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from three siblings (wever_result-validation-check, wever_deliverable-check, wever_handoff-acceptance-check). The core purpose is buried inside a very long first sentence, which costs it a point.

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?

Routing guidance is unusually explicit: one paid call's result against its order is wever_result-validation-check, a job's work against acceptance criteria is wever_deliverable-check, and who holds a task between send and acceptance is wever_handoff-acceptance-check, leaving this tool for acceptance of a delegate's work inside a delegation. It also names the verdicts it produces (accepted_unchecked, result_gaps, result_unverified, checked_against_brief). It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use phrasing, but the sibling boundaries do that job.

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.