worklore

report_check

Idempotent

Record the result of a story's read-only 'Check if this applies to you' section, run in the user's own project (attributed to the signed-in account). Run ONLY that check — change nothing, apply no fix. First decide whether it applies at all: if the project does not match the check's preconditions, do NOT call this — 'not applicable' is never recorded. Otherwise report 'has_problem' or 'no_problem', honestly. One counted result per person per story; a later report replaces the earlier one. Only stories whose get_story result has has_check: true can be checked.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>",
      "result": "<result>"
    },
    "name": "report_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional short note: the evidence (max 300 chars).
`slug`	Yes	The story slug whose check you ran.
`result`	Yes	What the check found in the user's project.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`checks`	No
`result`	No
`thanks`	No
`counted`	No
`credited`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / checks / properties / has_problem / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / checks / properties / no_problem / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / credited / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / ok / const
```
Added value: +true
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / result / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "has_problem",
+  "no_problem"
+]
```
- addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "ok"
+]
```
First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the write/read/idempotency profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description needn't restate safety. It usefully adds that a later report replaces the earlier one (one counted result per person per story), the honesty requirement, and the 'apply no fix' constraint — behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It stops short of describing attribution or downstream effects of a recorded 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?

The core prohibition ('run ONLY that check — change nothing') is front-loaded and the precondition follows immediately. Sentences are dense but each carries a distinct rule; nothing is redundant filler.

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 annotations covering the safety/idempotency profile and an output schema handling return values, the description supplies the remaining essentials: preconditions, replacement semantics, and the no-fix constraint. The only notable gap is lack of explicit contrast with report_reproduction.

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 slug, result, and note are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the meaning of result (has_problem/no_problem) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: record the result of a story's read-only check run in the user's project. It ties the operation to a concrete precondition (get_story's has_check: true), which helps separate it from unrelated siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with report_reproduction, the most confusable sibling, so differentiation is only partial.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when and when-not guidance: run ONLY that check, change nothing, and do NOT call when the project fails the check's preconditions since 'not applicable' is never recorded. It also gates on has_check: true and specifies honest reporting of has_problem/no_problem. This is close to a full routing rule.

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

All worklore tools Inspect

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.