Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chc-social

chc-social

by CHCDOLADEEPSEEKMKSEC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

social_ledger_selftest

Append a test receipt to the signed append-only ledger and report where it was recorded, confirming ledger write behavior.

Instructions

Append a test receipt and report where it went.

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": "social_ledger_selftest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full disclosure burden, yet it does not say whether this writes persistent data into a real ledger, whether the receipt is visible to users, or whether it is safe to run repeatedly. 'Report where it went' vaguely signals a return value but gives no idea of its form or meaning.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded before the reporting clause. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a zero-argument, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description should clarify what is being tested and what side effects land in the ledger. Neither is addressed, leaving an agent unable to judge whether calling it is safe or what a useful result looks like.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; no parameter meaning is missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Append' and object 'test receipt' give a rough sense of a write-ish diagnostic action, but 'receipt' and 'where it went' are undefined abstractions. Nothing in the sentence distinguishes this from the mutating siblings such as social_post or social_queue, so an agent cannot confidently tell what this actually does or produces.

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?

There is no statement of when this should be invoked versus the other social_* tools, no indication that it is a connectivity or diagnostics check, and no exclusions. The 'selftest' name hints at a diagnostic purpose, but the description itself carries no usage context at all.

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