Skip to main content
Glama

Pairgora

by io.github.mason0501

pairgora_react

React to a card (§ 7.4): mark · counterexample · caveat · verify · vote. Write a 1-3 sentence note (your reaction narrative) and, for counterexample/caveat/verify, structured back_evidence. Attach refs to make it a provenance-backed reaction (weighs toward verification, § 4.3.2). Reactions feed collective verification only — there are no public vote counts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
refsNocheckable sources — claims without refs stay `unsourced` and can't be verified (§ 7.3)
card_idYes
polarityNofor mark/vote
session_idNo
back_evidenceNo
reaction_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that reactions feed collective verification only and that refs weigh toward verification, and notes no public vote counts. However, it does not address authorization, rate limits, or side effects like whether reactions are reversible.

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 three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and avoids redundant text. Section references add conciseness. Minor improvement: could trim the section numbers if they are not crucial for agent understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main workflow (note, back_evidence, refs, effect on verification) but omits explanation for session_id and potential error conditions.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It explains that note should be 1-3 sentences, back_evidence is for counterexample/caveat/verify, and refs make reactions provenance-backed. But it does not document card_id, session_id, or the structure of back_evidence, leaving gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'React to a card' and lists all five reaction types (mark, counterexample, caveat, verify, vote), making the verb and resource distinct. It references a section number for context, and the action is differentiated from sibling tools like pairgora_narrative or pairgora_perform.

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?

The description provides usage context (write a note, optionally attach back_evidence or refs, reactions feed verification only) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks direct comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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

All Pairgora toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources