server

Attest a route outcome

waymark_attest

Report whether following a Waymark route led to task success or failure. Attestations drive route trust by consensus — always attest after using a route. Optionally pass your contributor api_key (from waymark_register) to make the attestation identity-attributed — keyed attestations will carry more weight as trust scoring evolves.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional short note on what diverged
`api_key`	No	Optional contributor API key (waymark_register). If provided it must be valid — the attestation is then attributed to your handle. Omit to attest anonymously.
`outcome`	Yes
`route_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedJul 6, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / api_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional contributor API key (waymark_register). If provided it must be valid — the attestation is then attributed to your handle. Omit to attest anonymously.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / note / maxLength
```
Added value: +500
```
- addedInput schema / properties / route_id / maxLength
```
Added value: +64
```
First observedJun 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds context beyond annotations: explains that attestations drive trust, and keyed attestations carry more weight. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false.

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 efficient sentences covering purpose, usage, and optional parameter without waste.

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?

No output schema, but description covers when to use, what it does, and optional parameters. Missing error handling or return details, but adequate for a simple report tool.

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 has 50% coverage (descriptions for note and api_key). Description adds value for api_key by linking to waymark_register and explaining attribution, but does not elaborate on route_id or outcome beyond schema.

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 verb 'Report' and resource 'route outcome', and distinguishes from siblings like waymark_query and waymark_register by focusing on attesting success/failure.

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?

Explicitly says 'always attest after using a route' and explains why (trust by consensus). Mentions optional api_key but doesn't provide exclusions or when-not-to-use.

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

All server 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 serves a unique, well-defined purpose: querying routes, contributing procedures, attesting outcomes, and registering for API keys. No functional overlap exists.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'waymark_<verb>', using snake_case and clear action verbs. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools cover the essential operations for a community-driven route knowledge base. The count is minimal yet complete, avoiding bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: registration, querying existing routes, contributing new procedures, and attesting outcomes. No obvious gaps for the intended use case.

Resources

Need Help?