Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Blocks

by zone.blocks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

set_week_grade

Destructive

Keep YOUR letter for a finished week, at the end of a week review (after get_week_grade): the letter the athlete sees on the week in Blocks, with a one-sentence verdict and two or three sentences under it. The letter is held inside the code's bounds — floor..ceiling, at most one step from the code's grade — and a move off the code's grade needs why (one sentence: an illness the check-ins show, a session swapped on purpose); without it the code's letter is kept. The result says the letter that was kept. Saves on return, no card; reviewing the week again replaces it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
whyNoone sentence, the athlete's language — required to move off the code's grade
bodyNotwo or three sentences under it: the evidence, what keeps coming back, what changes next week — not the verdict's numbers again
dateYesany day of the reviewed week
letterYes
verdictYesONE short sentence, the athlete's language, under ~90 characters: the judgement with at most one number — the headline on the week; the evidence goes in body

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"two or three sentences under it: what keeps coming back, what changes next week"New value: +"two or three sentences under it: the evidence, what keeps coming back, what changes next week — not the verdict's numbers again"
    • changedInput schema / properties / verdict / description
      Previous value: -"ONE sentence, the athlete's language: the week's finding with its number — the headline on the week"New value: +"ONE short sentence, the athlete's language, under ~90 characters: the judgement with at most one number — the headline on the week; the evidence goes in body"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context: the letter is bounded (floor..ceiling, at most one step from the code's grade), a `why` is required to deviate, and it 'Saves on return, no card; reviewing the week again replaces it'. The replacement/persistence disclosure directly enriches the destructive hint rather than repeating it.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries information about constraints or persistence. It is dense and slightly run-on ('Blocks', 'the code's bounds'), costing a little readability, but there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description correctly covers the return ('The result says the letter that was kept') and the persistence side effect. Combined with the bounded-grade rule and the `why` requirement, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 80% (baseline 3), and the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that `why` is the gate for moving off the code's grade, what `body` should avoid restating, and that the letter is clamped to a bounded range. These are semantic constraints not fully captured by the field descriptions alone.

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 ('Keep YOUR letter for a finished week') and distinguishes itself from its sibling by timing it 'at the end of a week review (after get_week_grade)'. The agent can tell this is the write-side counterpart to get_week_grade without opening any 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?

Clearly places the call after a week review and explicitly names get_week_grade as the prior step. It does not state what to do if no review has been done or list any conditions under which the tool should not be used, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Blocks toolsInspect
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.

Resources