Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CheckMyApp

by io.github.sorokinvj
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a verdict

get_verdict
Read-only

Verdict of a finished run: bottom line, per-journey outcomes, findings (title/category/severity) and the deploy it was bound to. Accepts a run id or the domain of one of the team's apps (its latest result). all_good / mostly_ok = healthy; needs_attention / broken = act; unverified = the check walked nothing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain_or_run_id": "<domain_or_run_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoAct in another of your teams, by its name or id (whoami lists them). Omitted: the key's own team
domain_or_run_idYesRun id or number ("#332"), or a domain/URL of one of your apps for its latest result

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by decoding the verdict vocabulary (all_good/mostly_ok = healthy, needs_attention/broken = act), which is genuine interpretive context an agent needs to act on the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly packed sentences with the payload described first and the vocabulary legend second; nothing is filler. The telegraphic register ('act', 'the check walked nothing') is slightly cryptic but still decodable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so at a summary level (findings with title/category/severity, deploy binding). What's missing is behavior when the run is unfinished or the id is unknown, but for a read-only lookup of a finished run this is largely complete.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the '#332' and URL forms. The description restates the domain/run-id duality but adds no syntax or edge-case detail, and the 'team' parameter is not mentioned at all, so it lands at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verdict of a finished run') and enumerates the returned content: bottom line, per-journey outcomes, findings, and bound deploy. The qualifier 'finished run' implicitly separates it from status/wait tools like get_check_status or wait_for_run, though no sibling is named outright.

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 tells the agent what inputs are accepted (a run id or an app domain for its latest result), which is useful invocation guidance, but it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or names an alternative for in-progress runs. The usage boundary must be inferred from 'finished run'.

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

All CheckMyApp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources