Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-judge

mcp-judge

by Bum-Boo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

judge_pending

List messages still awaiting a classification decision to review items not yet processed or affected by model errors.

Instructions

List items still awaiting a decision (model error / not yet processed).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "judge_pending"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, pagination, or any side effects; it only clarifies what counts as pending.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to gaps in guidance and parameter semantics.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it defines pending status and implies a read operation. It still omits limit semantics, pagination behavior, and explicit usage alternatives, which are not covered elsewhere because annotations are absent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the sole optional parameter, limit, is not mentioned in the description despite having a default of 50. The parameter name is intuitive, but its semantics, limits, or effects are left entirely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb, "List," and a clear resource, "items still awaiting a decision," with a parenthetical clarifying the pending states (model error / not yet processed). It is distinguishable in purpose from siblings like judge_get and judge_ingest, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase "still awaiting a decision" implies the tool should be used to inspect backlog or unprocessed/error items. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as judge_get for retrieving processed items.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools