mark_drift
Manually mark an article as DRIFT.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| article | No | ||
| entity_id | No |
driftoracle
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
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 burden. It states the action (mark) but does not disclose effects, reversibility, permissions required, or what happens after marking. It adds minimal context beyond the verb, lacking any explanation of side effects or follow-up actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. It is not a tautology like 'Process', but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutating tool (marking an article) with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage. The description fails to explain the meaning of 'article', 'entity_id', or the consequences of marking. It is highly incomplete for the complexity, especially given numerous related sibling tools with which it could be confused.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three string parameters (reason, article, entity_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention or explain any of these parameters. The agent must rely solely on param names, which are insufficient for understanding relationships or required format. No parameter semantics are added.
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 clearly states the verb ('mark') and resource ('an article') and specifies the outcome state ('as DRIFT'). The word 'Manually' distinguishes it from the automatic detection sibling tools, but it does not fully differentiate from resolve_drift or trigger_remediation. Overall, it is specific but lacks explicit sibling contrast.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like detect_* or resolve_drift. The word 'Manually' implies a use case for overriding automated detection, but no explicit when/when-not is provided. The tool description does not mention prerequisites or contexts.
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.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detection tools differentiated by drift type. Minor overlap exists between health_check and ping, as well as control_drift and evidence_drift sharing degraded controls, but descriptions provide enough context to avoid confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming pattern is mixed: detect_* tools consistently use verb_noun, but drift_history and drift_status follow noun_noun, and full_drift_scan is a compound noun. While readable, the inconsistency makes the set feel less cohesive.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is slightly above average but justified by the broad scope of drift detection and management. Each tool earns its place, covering detection, viewing, configuration, and remediation without obvious redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full drift lifecycle: detection (multiple types), full scan, history, status, configuration, manual marking/resolving, and automated remediation. Minor gaps like lacking a single-event detail view are not critical for core workflows.