RoloCache

report_to_outpost

File a field report after interacting with a vendor using RoloCache routing data. Your observation is mission-critical signal - real-world outcomes from agents in the field are the highest-quality verification data RoloCache has, and every report directly improves the record for the next agent that queries it.

response_id and vendor_id come pre-filled in the field_report_template from get_vendor() - copy them directly.

protocol_attempted: which protocol from data.protocols you actually used.

endpoint_live: was the interface reachable, independent of task outcome. workflow_completed: did your actual task succeed end to end. friction_encountered: did anything go wrong or require extra steps.

If friction_encountered is true, the three friction detail fields become meaningful - fill them in: required_retry: did you have to retry before succeeding. required_human_handoff: did the task ultimately require a human. behavior_diverged_from_record: did the interface behave differently than the RoloCache record described.

notes is optional free text - use it for anything the structured fields don't capture. Treated as untrusted input on receipt.

If not using MCP, POST the field_report_template as JSON to https://www.rolocache.com/agent-tools/v1/field-report instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	No
`vendor_id`	Yes
`response_id`	Yes
`endpoint_live`	Yes
`required_retry`	No
`protocol_attempted`	Yes
`workflow_completed`	Yes
`friction_encountered`	Yes
`required_human_handoff`	No
`behavior_diverged_from_record`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses behavior. It explains that notes are untrusted, that friction fields become meaningful conditionally, and that reports improve the record. It does not mention side effects beyond that, but the tool is a benign report submission, so this is adequate.

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 moderately long but well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence adds value: purpose, importance, parameter details, conditional logic, and alternative usage. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 covers nearly all aspects: purpose, parameters, usage instructions, and alternative. It does not describe the output schema or the response structure post-submission, but given the tool is a one-way report, the description is sufficiently complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: response_id and vendor_id come from get_vendor(), protocol_attempted is the protocol used, booleans are defined, friction details are conditional, and notes is optional and untrusted. This adds full meaning beyond field names.

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 'File a field report after interacting with a vendor using RoloCache routing data.' It clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. Sibling tools like get_vendor and lookup_vendors are query-oriented, making this distinct as a write operation.

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 provides clear context: it should be used after interacting with a vendor and explains that response_id and vendor_id come from get_vendor(). It also includes an alternative HTTP endpoint. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings 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.

All RoloCache tools Inspect

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

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: get_catalog_info provides metadata, lookup_vendors searches vendors, get_vendor retrieves full records, and report_to_outpost submits feedback. No overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores: get_catalog_info, get_vendor, lookup_vendors, report_to_outpost.

Tool Count4/5

Four tools cover the core workflow of exploring, searching, retrieving details, and reporting. Slightly on the low side but well-scoped for a catalog/feedback system.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers discovery, search, detail retrieval, and feedback. Missing update/create capabilities, but those appear out of scope for this read-oriented catalog.

Resources

Need Help?