Report what happened after following the selected route. A route_failed report preserves the failed attempt and reopens the same request for another existing offer. Requester evidence is tracked but is not independently verified completion by itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| outcome | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| request_token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a route_failed report preserves the failed attempt and reopens the request, and that requester evidence is tracked but not independently verified. However, it does not describe the effects of other outcomes (attempted, acceptance_advanced, acceptance_passed) or whether the report is final, leaving gaps in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds one key clarifying detail about route_failed. There is no redundant wording; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives some context but lacks parameter explanations and full behavioral details for all outcomes. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for an agent to invoke without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It only explains the route_failed outcome but does not clarify the meaning or format of request_id, request_token, evidence, or the semantics of the other enum values. This is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Report what happened after following the selected route.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_outcome_execution by focusing on reporting the outcome. The special route_failed behavior also adds clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used after following a selected route, which provides context for when to invoke it. It also explains the route_failed scenario and notes that evidence alone does not verify completion. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are separated by lifecycle stage, and the descriptions are detailed, but resolve_blocker and request_outcome_execution both accept work the agent cannot complete, making their boundary subtle. get_blocker_resolution and get_outcome_execution are also both private status readers, so some overlap exists even though descriptions help.
The set is mostly consistent with snake_case verb_noun names like search_work, select_blocker_offer, and report_blocker_outcome. buyer_capabilities is a bare noun phrase rather than a verb_noun, and submission verbs vary between resolve and request, but overall the naming remains predictable.
Ten tools is well within the well-scoped range for a workflow server. Each tool supports the blocker lifecycle, execution status, or work/service discovery, and none feels gratuitous.
The core workflow is fully represented: resolve a blocker, discover routes, select an offer, execute, read evidence, and report outcomes. There is no explicit cancel or request-history tool, and some search/discovery tools are not tied to a follow-up action, but these are minor gaps rather than dead ends.