Skip to main content
Glama

AgentWork Outcomes

by io.github.mitchellOpZero

Request an outcome

request_outcome

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

Input Schema

TableJSON 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.
repeat_of_outcome_idNoRepeat a completed outcome through fresh supply checks and pricing.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema 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
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the tool does not spend, post, purchase, or invoke anything, and that it returns a single quote. It does not mention potential persistence/recording side effects or failure behavior, but the most important non-execution trait is explicit.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second sentence adds a crucial non-execution warning. Every word earns its place.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with a oneOf schema and no output schema, the description gives sufficient high-level orientation: it plans an outcome and returns one quote without executing. The schema covers parameter details, so the description does not need to repeat them. It lacks explicit guidance on choosing between outcome, retry_gap_id, and repeat_of_outcome_id, but those are described in the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only restating the outcome concept in natural language. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: it finds a reliable procurement plan and returns one retail quote. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from execution tools by stating 'does not spend, post, purchase, or invoke anything', which separates it from confirm_outcome and similar actions.

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 implies when to use this tool by noting the output is 'for confirmation', suggesting confirm_outcome as the next step. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus get_outcome, resume_outcome, or confirm_outcome.

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

All AgentWork Outcomes 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool maps to a distinct stage in the outcome lifecycle: request creates a quote, confirm commits to funding, resume reconciles pending operations, and get reads current state. There is no meaningful overlap between the four actions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_outcome pattern: request_outcome, confirm_outcome, resume_outcome, and get_outcome. This makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a focused outcome lifecycle server. Each tool represents a necessary operation without superfluous additions.

Completeness4/5

The core flow of request, confirm, resume, and get covers the main procurement and funding lifecycle. A cancel or update operation could be a useful addition, but the current surface supports the primary workflow without dead ends.

Resources