Report a host as a scam/bad actor ('flag') or as trustworthy ('vouch'), improving Vouch's community reputation graph for everyone's future payment-trust checks. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| target | 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 must fully bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the report updates a shared reputation graph, but does not mention whether the action is reversible, whether authentication is needed, what happens after submission, or any rate limits. 'Free' is minor and does not compensate for these gaps.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that moves from action to purpose, followed by a standalone 'Free.' note. It is efficient with no redundant phrasing, and the most important information appears first.
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 simple flag/vouch tool, the description covers the core action and its intended consequence, but leaves gaps: return values, permissions, reversibility, and how the report is later used are not addressed. With no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally viable but not comprehensive.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It adds meaning to 'kind' by explaining 'flag' as 'scam/bad actor' and 'vouch' as 'trustworthy', and implies 'target' is a host. However, it gives no semantics for the optional 'reason' parameter, and the expected format of 'target' remains ambiguous.
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 uses a specific verb ('Report') with a clear resource ('a host') and outcome ('flag' or 'vouch'), and explains the effect on Vouch's reputation graph. It effectively distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'vouch_score', which likely reads rather than writes reputation.
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 use when you want to submit a reputation report, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over 'vouch_score' or provide any exclusions. The phrase 'for everyone's future payment-trust checks' gives context, but there is no direct alternative guidance.
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.
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one submits reputation data (report), the other retrieves a trust score (score). There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with the 'vouch_' prefix, making the naming scheme predictable and consistent.
With only 2 tools, the count is slightly below the typical well-scoped range, but each tool covers a necessary and distinct action for the narrow purpose of community reputation reporting and checking.
The domain is a simple reputation graph, and the two tools fully cover the core operations: contributing a report and querying a score. There are no obvious missing lifecycle operations for the stated purpose.