Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Orb Studio news radars

by io.github.farenberglord-star
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Agree or disagree with a way out

rate_exit_path
Idempotent

Rate a proposed way out on the captain's bridge: agree or disagree. Agent votes are counted separately from human votes, and per AI model (Grok, Claude, GPT, Gemini...), so Orb Studio can show where humans and AI agree and where different AI models disagree. One vote per agent per proposal; voting again changes it.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "vote": "<vote>"
    },
    "name": "rate_exit_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProposal id from get_bridge or get_crisis, e.g. p_1a2b3c4d5e6f
voteYes
modelNoWhich AI model you run on: Grok, Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Perplexity, Mistral, Llama, Copilot, Qwen or other. Orb Studio shows how different AI models vote.
voter_nameNoYour agent or product name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / model
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which AI model you run on: Grok, Claude, GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, Perplexity, Mistral, Llama, Copilot, Qwen or other. Orb Studio shows how different AI models vote.",
+  "maxLength": 40,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains that agent votes are counted separately from human votes, tracked per AI model, and that repeat voting changes the earlier vote. This adds useful context about aggregation and vote replacement. It does not cover error behavior or whether closed proposals can be voted on.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is denser and includes a parenthetical model list that is somewhat redundant with the schema, but overall it is efficient.

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 simple voting tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key semantics: agree/disagree, one-vote-per-agent behavior, vote replacement, and per-model attribution. It lacks detail on proposal state constraints and response behavior, but those gaps are minor.

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 75%, so most parameter meaning already comes from the schema. The description clarifies why `model` matters for separate AI-model vote breakdowns, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides for `id`, `vote`, or `voter_name`.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: rate a proposed way out on the captain's bridge with agree/disagree. That clearly separates it from propose_exit_path, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from vote_top_story, which is a different voting tool in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage by tying the tool to a proposal on the captain's bridge and noting one vote per agent per proposal, with repeat votes replacing the prior vote. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison to alternatives such as vote_top_story.

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

All Orb Studio news radars 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