whycant

Look up an existing verdict

get_verdict

Fetch a verdict that was already minted, by its result id or slug. Read-only — no new analysis, no rate-limit cost. Returns the same structured verdict shape as roast_idea.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The /result/[id] id or slug returned by a prior roast_idea call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`verdict`	Yes	Real VerdictTier enum value, e.g. SHUT_UP_AND_TAKE_MY_MONEY
`agentName`	Yes
`resultUrl`	Yes	Canonical /result/[id] share URL
`savageLine`	Yes
`topRiskCode`	Yes	Top OWASP-MCP risk code, e.g. MCP-3
`scopeCallUrl`	Yes	Cal.com 20-min scope-call URL
`topRiskTitle`	Yes
`verdictLabel`	Yes
`readinessBand`	Yes	Letter band A-F
`readinessScore`	Yes	Agent-readiness 0-100
`percentileFraming`	Yes	"You're the X% who…" line

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior, no new analysis, no rate-limit cost, and the output shape matching roast_idea. This covers key behavioral aspects, though error handling or not-found behavior is not mentioned.

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 concise sentences front-load the action and key constraints. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter retrieval with an output schema, the description comprehensively covers purpose, read-only nature, cost implications, and output shape. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'by result id or slug' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's detailed parameter description. It does not clarify formats or valid values further.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches an existing verdict by result id or slug, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like roast_idea (which likely creates) and browse_explore/get_stats (which likely serve other purposes).

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 for when to use this tool: to retrieve an already minted verdict, with emphasis on being read-only and without rate-limit cost. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context strongly implies it. No explicit exclusions are given.

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

All whycant 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: browse_explore lists existing roasts, get_stats returns site-wide metrics, get_verdict retrieves a specific roast, and roast_idea creates a new roast. There is no overlap between these operations, and the descriptions reinforce the boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: browse_explore, get_stats, get_verdict, roast_idea. The verbs are action-oriented and the nouns are logical objects, making it easy to predict what each tool does.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: explore, retrieve, create, and stats. Each tool earns its place, and the count is neither too thin nor overly heavy for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of the domain: browsing existing roasts, fetching a specific verdict, creating a new roast, and viewing site statistics. There are no obvious dead ends or missing core operations.

Resources

Need Help?