Skip to main content
Glama

complete_interaction

Requester completes and optionally scores an AION interaction, updating provider reputation once.

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": {
      "interaction_id": "<interaction_id>"
    },
    "name": "complete_interaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreNo
resultNo
interaction_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the provider-reputation side effect and hints at idempotency with 'once,' but omits permissions, reversibility, failure behavior, and what completing does to the interaction.

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?

It is one tightly front-loaded sentence; every clause adds information about the action, optional scoring, and side effect.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It leaves result semantics, return behavior, permissions, and idempotency unclear.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so parameter meaning must come from the description. It mentions that score is optional but does not explain the 'result' parameter, the role of interaction_id, or how result affects completion.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('completes') and resource ('AION interaction') and names the optional scoring behavior. It is clear about the action, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from any sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It identifies the caller as 'Requester' and says scoring is optional, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.