Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

POAScan

by io.github.jakegallen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Governance standing

list_governance_standing
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every established Agent in a segment with its level, closes left, closes missed, last challenge_eligible epoch and estimated drop close (L + estab_ttl + 1 rule, an estimate). level narrows to one level. Use it for 'who is at risk' across the segment; for one Agent use get_standing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirNodesc (default: the key's natural order, highest first for numbers, A to Z for names, fewest closes left first for left, a level in its order) or asc (reversed); blanks last either waydesc
sortNolevel (soonest drop first, default), score or a Score part, name (A to Z), left (fewest closes left first), missed, last (last cleared close) or drop (drop close)level
levelNoonly this level
limitNomaximum Agents to return (1 to 5000, default 200)
segmentNochain segment: omit for the current one; 1 reads segment 1 (archived at the 2026-10-24 genesis cut), whose epoch numbers repeat in the current segment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / dir / description
      Previous value: -"desc (Top first, default) or asc (Bottom first)"New value: +"desc (default: the key's natural order, highest first for numbers, A to Z for names, fewest closes left first for left, a level in its order) or asc (reversed); blanks last either way"
    • changedInput schema / properties / sort / description
      Previous value: -"level (soonest drop first, default), score or a Score part"New value: +"level (soonest drop first, default), score or a Score part, name (A to Z), left (fewest closes left first), missed, last (last cleared close) or drop (drop close)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / sort / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "level",
-  "score",
-  "standing",
-  "grading",
-  "forum",
-  "consistency"
-]New value: +[
+  "level",
+  "score",
+  "standing",
+  "grading",
+  "forum",
+  "consistency",
+  "name",
+  "left",
+  "missed",
+  "last",
+  "drop"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world list. The description adds one genuinely useful disclosure — that the drop close is an estimate computed from an L + estab_ttl + 1 rule — but says nothing about result size behavior, truncation, or default sorting implications beyond what the schema states.

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?

One tight paragraph with the field list front-loaded and the alternative routing at the end. Phrasing is telegraphic ('level narrows to one level') and slightly clipped, but nothing is padding.

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?

With 5 optional params and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the estimate caveat, which an agent needs to interpret 'drop'. It stops short of describing default ordering interplay (sort defaults to soonest drop) and the segment-1 epoch-number reuse nuance that the schema carries.

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 100% and the schema already documents dir, sort, level, limit, and segment with enums and defaults. The description only restates that 'level narrows to one level' and refers to 'a segment', adding no syntax or semantics the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (governance standing per Agent in a segment) and enumerates the returned fields — level, closes left, closes missed, last challenge_eligible epoch, estimated drop close. It names get_standing as the single-Agent counterpart, but does not distinguish itself from close siblings like list_at_risk and list_established, which read as overlapping.

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?

'Use it for who is at risk across the segment; for one Agent use get_standing' gives both a usage context and an explicit alternative. The gap is that list_at_risk exists as a sibling and the description never says why an agent would pick this over that tool.

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

All POAScan 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