Verified Handles

Assess an application

assess_application

Destructive

Save your assessment of an open application against the eligibility policy, without deciding it: give only the fields that change; the rest stay as the application has them. The dry run shows the score it comes to. Audited. Dry run by default.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dry_run`	No	true (the default): write nothing — show the change and the exact request it would send. false: make the change.
`wikipedia`	No	An English Wikipedia article about the subject, undisputed and at least 10 days old, confirmed — eligible on its own.
`registered`	No	Registrations confirmed (20 points each).
`press_points`	No	Press coverage, 0–50 points.
`impersonation`	No	A significant risk of impersonation, in your judgement — eligible on its own.
`application_id`	Yes	The application’s id (list_applications).
`associated_entry`	No	An associated eligible entry confirmed (100 points).
`verified_accounts`	No	Verified TikTok/Snapchat accounts confirmed (50 points each).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	A dry run: what to do next to make the change, in words.
`result`	No	A real run: the route’s own answer, where the tool adds facts of its own beside it.
`confirm`	No	A dry run of a change that needs it: the exact target to send back as `confirm` with dry_run: false.
`dry_run`	No	true: a dry run, which wrote nothing. Absent from a real run.
`replayed`	No	A real run with an idempotency_key already used for this change: the first call’s answer, given back; nothing was written now.
`would_send`	No	A dry run: the exact request the real run would send (`method`, `path`, any `headers` such as an Idempotency-Key, and its `body`, `form` or `query`), or the requests, in order.
`may_edit_live`	No	A dry run of a live edit: whether this key’s account may edit this entry live.
`refused_because`	No	A dry run the real run would be refused for: why, in words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false), so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: partial-merge semantics ('give only the fields that change; the rest stay as the application has them'), auditing, and the score preview from dry run.

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?

Three tight clauses with no filler: partial-update rule, dry-run preview, audit note. Front-loaded with the core action and the critical 'without deciding it' qualifier.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an 8-parameter scoring mutation with an output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs: what it writes, the no-decision constraint, merge semantics, dry-run default, and auditability. Return values are legitimately covered by the output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a semantic the schema does not: unspecified fields are preserved rather than cleared. That merge behavior materially affects how an agent should populate the 8 parameters, so it earns above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Save your assessment of an open application against the eligibility policy' — and immediately scopes it as 'without deciding it.' That clause cleanly separates it from the decision siblings (approve_application, reject_application, mark_application_spam) without needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: it applies to 'an open application' and is explicitly not the deciding action, and it notes the default dry-run posture. It never names an alternative tool explicitly (e.g. 'to decide, use approve_application'), so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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

All Verified Handles 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.