Skip to main content
Glama

AgentWork Outcomes

by io.github.mitchellOpZero
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Buy a finished outcome through services, agents, marketplaces, humans, tools, or swarms.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-06-18
URL
Repository
mitchellOpZero/agentwork-api
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
AgentWork MCP Server

TDQS

A4/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct verb (confirm, get, request, resume) targeting different stages of the outcome lifecycle, with no overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern with '_outcome' suffix, making the naming predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools cover the core read, request, confirm, and resume operations without excess, fitting well within the typical 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the primary workflow stages but lacks explicit update or cancel operations; however, the core lifecycle is reasonably complete.

Available Tools

4 tools
confirm_outcomeConfirm an outcome quoteAInspect

Explicitly confirm a previously returned quote and begin configured funding. This may cause a financial action when funding is enabled.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quote_idYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly warns 'This may cause a financial action when funding is enabled', which is a material behavioral disclosure beyond what the title implies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the financial warning follows immediately. Every word contributes useful meaning.

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 single-parameter confirmation tool, the description covers the core action, the precondition, and the key risk. It does not detail error behavior or explicitly route among siblings, but those are minor gaps relative to the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema provides no description for quote_id and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by referring to a 'previously returned quote', implying that quote_id comes from an earlier response, but it never explicitly ties the parameter to that origin or explains its format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'confirm a previously returned quote'. It also clarifies the consequential purpose, 'begin configured funding', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_outcome, request_outcome, and resume_outcome.

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?

The phrase 'previously returned quote' establishes the expected precondition: this tool follows a quote-generation step. It clearly implies the right moment to call it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

get_outcomeGet an outcomeBInspect

Read the current payment, supplier, artifact, verification, and remediation state for an outcome.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outcome_idYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' and 'current state' convey a non-mutating retrieval, and the scope is explicit. However, it omits error behavior, whether an outcome must already exist, and any access or prerequisite details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence beginning with the operative verb 'Read'. It lists the relevant state dimensions without filler or redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool, the description names the operation and the state dimensions returned. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves ambiguity about response shape, not-found behavior, and whether any preconditions apply.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only refers to 'an outcome' without explaining outcome_id format, constraints, or usage. It adds little meaning beyond the schema's property name and type.

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 states a read operation on an outcome's current state and enumerates the exact scope: payment, supplier, artifact, verification, and remediation. This effectively distinguishes it from the action-oriented siblings confirm_outcome, request_outcome, and resume_outcome.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The sibling names imply they perform actions, but the description never states whether get_outcome should be used first, for preconditions, or after modifications.

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

request_outcomeRequest an outcomeAInspect

Find a reliable procurement plan for an outcome and return one retail quote for confirmation. This does not spend, post, purchase, or invoke anything.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoOptional non-secret context needed to plan the outcome.
outcomeNoThe complete outcome the caller wants.
deadlineNoOptional delivery deadline.
done_whenNoOptional observable completion criteria.
retry_gap_idNoRetry a previously recorded routing or scoping gap with fresh supply checks.
authority_scopesNoExplicit non-financial authority granted for this outcome. Quote confirmation grants spend only.
max_spend_microsNoOptional maximum retail spend in USDC micros. Zero permits only free routes.
repeat_of_outcome_idNoReuse a verified route where compatible. Supply a fresh outcome, done_when, inputs, and authority; previous values are never inherited.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states that the tool does not spend, post, purchase, or invoke anything. This is a strong disclosure of non-executing behavior, making the side effects clear even without annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, consisting of two clear sentences that succinctly convey purpose and side effects. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary detail.

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?

The description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and non-executing nature, but lacks details about the expected output format (the quote structure) or how to interpret the returned quote. Given the rich schema, this is a minor gap.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as relationships between parameters or usage details for specific fields.

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 states the tool's function: to find a reliable procurement plan and return a retail quote for confirmation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like confirm_outcome, get_outcome, and resume_outcome, which handle confirmation, retrieval, and resumption respectively.

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?

The description implies this tool is the initial step for requesting an outcome and obtaining a quote before confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over confirm_outcome or resume_outcome, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

resume_outcomeResume an outcomeBInspect

Idempotently poll or reconcile pending supplier and financial operations for an outcome.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outcome_idYes

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose an important behavioral trait: idempotency, which tells agents that repeated calls are safe. However, it does not clarify whether reconciliation has side effects, what the response looks like, or what prerequisites or permissions are needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It places the key behavioral term 'Idempotently' first and conveys the core operation compactly.

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?

For a tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable starting point by stating the operation and the domain. It is incomplete, though, because it leaves usage timing, side effects, and return behavior unspecified, and there are no annotations to fill those gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented `outcome_id` parameter. It only references 'an outcome' generically and never explicitly explains that `outcome_id` is the identifier of the outcome being resumed, nor its format or required semantics.

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 names a specific action ('Idempotently poll or reconcile') and a resource ('pending supplier and financial operations for an outcome'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that request, get, or confirm outcomes. However, the phrase 'poll or reconcile' is slightly ambiguous about whether these are alternative modes or intertwined steps.

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 word 'pending' implies this tool is for handling outcomes that have unfinished supplier or financial operations, giving some context for when to use it. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name any alternative, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • Changedrequest_outcome4 fields changed
      • changedInput schema / oneOf
        Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "outcome"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "retry_gap_id"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "repeat_of_outcome_id"
-    ]
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "not": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "required": [
+            "retry_gap_id"
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "required": [
+            "repeat_of_outcome_id"
+          ]
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "outcome"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "not": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "required": [
+            "outcome"
+          ]
+        },
+        {
+          "required": [
+            "repeat_of_outcome_id"
+          ]
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "retry_gap_id"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "not": {
+      "required": [
+        "retry_gap_id"
+      ]
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "repeat_of_outcome_id"
+    ]
+  }
+]
      • changedInput schema / properties / max_spend_micros / description
        Previous value: -"Optional maximum retail spend in USDC micros."New value: +"Optional maximum retail spend in USDC micros. Zero permits only free routes."
      • changedInput schema / properties / max_spend_micros / minimum
        Previous value: -1New value: +0
      • changedInput schema / properties / repeat_of_outcome_id / description
        Previous value: -"Repeat a completed outcome through fresh supply checks and pricing."New value: +"Reuse a verified route where compatible. Supply a fresh outcome, done_when, inputs, and authority; previous values are never inherited."
  2. 1 tool update
    • Changedrequest_outcome1 field changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / authority_scopes
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Explicit non-financial authority granted for this outcome. Quote confirmation grants spend only.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "read_public_data",
+      "contact_external_party",
+      "represent_requester",
+      "create_account",
+      "create_or_use_wallet",
+      "publish",
+      "use_private_data"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array",
+  "uniqueItems": true
+}
  3. 4 tool updates
    • First observedconfirm_outcome
    • First observedget_outcome
    • First observedrequest_outcome
    • First observedresume_outcome

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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