report_injection_attempt
Report a suspected prompt-injection block. Always free.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| block_id | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes |
PromptDNA
TDQS
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Always free', indicating no cost, but omits many important details: whether the report is anonymous, if it triggers automatic actions, what happens to reported blocks, error conditions, or if it can be undone. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.
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 description is extremely concise with two short sentences. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices crucial information. For a 2-param tool, it could include more detail without becoming bloated. It is well-structured but underinformative.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, expected input formats, or what happens after reporting. An agent would lack critical context to use the tool correctly.
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 0% description coverage, leaving parameters block_id and evidence undefined. The description fails to explain what 'evidence' constitutes (e.g., text screenshots, logs) or how to obtain a valid block_id. Since the description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names, this scores very low.
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 tool's purpose: reporting a suspected prompt-injection block. The verb 'report' and the specific resource 'prompt-injection block' provide clarity, though 'block' is not defined further. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like submit_dmca_takedown or submit_appeal which cover different report types.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Always free' suggests no cost, but does not explain context, prerequisites, or when not to use. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative tool references.
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
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource. For example, compose_prompt assembles prompts, search_blocks searches, register_agent initiates registration. Even related tools like get_block and get_block_versions are clearly differentiated by purpose (current vs history).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compose_prompt, submit_block, verify_registration). No mixing of naming conventions, making it predictable for an agent.
Tool Count4/5
With 20 tools, the scope is broad but well-justified by the diverse functionality (search, submission, ratings, registration, DMCA, etc.). It is on the higher end but not excessive for a full-featured platform.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers core workflows like searching, viewing, creating, and rating blocks, but lacks update or delete operations for blocks. Also missing tools for managing user profiles or block editing, which are notable gaps.