Skip to main content
Glama

Bewertung abholen

bewertung_abholen
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this to collect the result of an evaluation that was started with text_bewerten, using its job_id. Returns status "running" (not finished yet), "done" (with the verdict or, without sign-in, the reduced report; shown as a card) or an error status. Works with or without sign-in; only the caller's own evaluations can be collected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesThe job_id returned by text_bewerten.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jobIdNo
labelsNo
statusYes
infoUrlNo
messageYes
previewNo
verdictNo
infoLabelNo
retryAfterSecondsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / preview / properties / exam / properties / slug / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "testdaf",
      -  "dsh",
      -  "goethe_c1",
      -  "telc_c1"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "testdaf",
      +  "dsh",
      +  "goethe_c1",
      +  "telc_c1",
      +  "telc_c1_allgemein"
      +]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / verdict / properties / exam / properties / slug / enum
      Previous value: -[
      -  "testdaf",
      -  "dsh",
      -  "goethe_c1",
      -  "telc_c1"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "testdaf",
      +  "dsh",
      +  "goethe_c1",
      +  "telc_c1",
      +  "telc_c1_allgemein"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / preview
      Added value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "biggestRisk": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "exam": {
      +      "additionalProperties": false,
      +      "properties": {
      +        "name": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "slug": {
      +          "enum": [
      +            "testdaf",
      +            "dsh",
      +            "goethe_c1",
      +            "telc_c1"
      +          ],
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "slug",
      +        "name"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "language": {
      +      "enum": [
      +        "de",
      +        "en",
      +        "ar",
      +        "tr",
      +        "ru",
      +        "zh",
      +        "fa"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "marks": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "ownWork": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "short": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "wordCount": {
      +      "type": "number"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "exam",
      +    "language",
      +    "wordCount",
      +    "biggestRisk",
      +    "marks",
      +    "short",
      +    "ownWork"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the three possible statuses (running/done/error), the fact that an unauthenticated caller gets a reduced report, and the ownership restriction on whose jobs can be collected. The 'shown as a card' detail is UI noise, and some return detail overlaps the output schema, keeping this just short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the prerequisite before the status enumeration. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical about the card rendering is incidental detail.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is optional, yet the description still supplies the status vocabulary, the auth-dependent result variation, and the ownership constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema description already states 'The job_id returned by text_bewerten.' The description's 'using its job_id' and the same provenance note add no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('collect the result of an evaluation') and explicitly ties it to the sibling that starts the job, text_bewerten. An agent can distinguish this retrieval tool from the evaluation-creation tool without opening 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Names the prerequisite (a job_id produced by text_bewerten) and the condition that routes here rather than to text_bewerten. It also states the sign-in and ownership conditions under which collection succeeds, leaving nothing to inference.

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.

Resources