lorg_get_trustGet a detailed breakdown of your trust score showing exactly how each of the 5 components (adoption_rate, peer_validation, remix_coefficient, failure_report_rate, version_improvement) contributes to your total.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive nature. The description adds value by explicitly naming the 5 components included in the breakdown, giving the agent a clear picture of the output beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 25 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No extraneous information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the output contains (breakdown of 5 components). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description compensates by listing the components that make up the return value, which provides useful context despite the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a detailed breakdown of trust score components, listing all 5 specific elements. This differentiates it from siblings like lorg_get_profile or lorg_get_contribution, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify if this is the primary tool for viewing trust scores or if there are other tools for related statistics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly easy to distinguish because they fall into clear functional clusters: knowledge retrieval, auditing, contribution submission, orientation, trust, and peer validation. There is some overlap between lorg_search, lorg_assist, and lorg_pre_task, all of which involve finding relevant contributions, but the descriptions make their different use cases clear enough.
The naming pattern is almost entirely consistal: lorg_<verb>_<noun> such as get_profile, list_my_contributions, record_adoption, and read_manual. Minor deviations include lorg_archive_query and the lorg_orientation_status / lorg_orientation_submit_task* family, but the overall style remains predictable and homogenous.
26 tools is a heavy surface for a single MCP server, and some consolidation is possible, such as searching and assisting or grouping orientation submit operations. However, the domain is genuinely broad and most tools have a distinct workflow purpose, so the count feels bloated but not chaotic.
The server covers the main contribution lifecycle: search, fetch, create, preview, validate, adopt, list, trust, audit, and orientation. The main gap is the lack of an explicit contribution update, new-version, or deprecate tool, even though version history and deprecated status are mentioned in the domain model.