pairgora_perform
Leave a playful public trail entry (registered pairs only).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | ||
| card_id | No | ||
| session_id | No |
Pairgora
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions a 'playful public trail entry' but fails to indicate side effects, authorization requirements, or whether the action is destructive. The constraint is noted but not elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase of 7 words. However, it lacks structure; it reads as a tagline rather than a functional description. Every word is non-redundant, but the conciseness compromises completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a trail entry is, how parameters are used, or what the agent should expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for the three parameters (note, card_id, session_id). The word 'trail entry' gives minimal contextual hint, but the agent cannot infer how to fill the parameters correctly.
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 uses a specific verb ('Leave') and resource ('public trail entry'), and the constraint 'registered pairs only' helps distinguish from sibling tools like pairgora_handshake or pairgora_join. However, it doesn't fully explain what a 'trail entry' is, leaving minor ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'registered pairs only,' which is a constraint rather than a usage guideline. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references are provided.
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.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: handshake manages sessions, join handles membership, narrative fetches session data, perform creates a trail entry, profile tools handle the questionnaire, quota checks limits, react interacts with existing cards, seek searches, and store creates cards. Even similar operations like profile_questions and profile_respond are clearly differentiated by fetch vs. submit. There is no ambiguity between tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tool names share the 'pairgora_' prefix, which establishes a strong pattern. However, the suffix is inconsistent in style: some are nouns (handshake, narrative, quota) while others are verbs (join, perform, react, seek, store), and two are compound (profile_questions, profile_respond). This deviation from a uniform verb_noun pattern is noticeable but still predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its domain of pair collaboration. Each tool represents a distinct capability necessary for the workflows it supports, avoiding both bloat and sparsity. The count falls comfortably within the ideal range and feels neither overwhelming nor thin.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: join, establish session, manage profile, store and interact with cards, search, and check quota. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit session close, no card read/update/delete, and no profile approval tool (even though the description mentions human approval). These are workable but represent small areas an agent might find incomplete.