Skip to main content
Glama

Content Quality & Drift Check

dcl_evaluate_quality

Evaluate agent response quality and detect drift before action. Obtain a cryptographic audit verdict and tamper-evident log entry for policy compliance and forensic review.

Instructions

PRE-ACTION Content Quality & Drift Check ($0.03).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesIdentifier of the agent that produced the response.
responseYesThe agent or LLM response text to check for quality and drift.
payment_idNoOptional payment identifier returned by a previous call when payment is required

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesHuman-readable explanation of why the verdict was reached.
tx_hashYesHash of this record in the tamper-evident audit chain.
verdictYesCOMMIT if the response passed policy checks, otherwise NO_COMMIT.
seal_textYesHuman-readable Leibniz Layer verification seal.
timestampYesUnix timestamp when this record was sealed.
confidenceYesConfidence score of the verdict, from 0.0 to 1.0.
drift_modeYesCurrent drift status: NORMAL, WARNING, ESCALATION, or BLOCK.
input_hashYesHash of the evaluated response (raw content is never stored).
verify_urlYesPublic URL to independently verify this seal.
chain_indexYesSequential index of this record in the audit chain.
drift_scoreYesZ-score measuring deviation of the recent commit rate from baseline.
policy_versionYesVersion of the policy that was applied.
Behavior1/5

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It only mentions a price ($0.03) without explaining what side effects, permissions, or limits exist. The annotations already indicate it's not read-only, but the description adds no useful context about how the tool operates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief, essentially just a title and cost. While concise, it suffers from under-specification, providing almost no functional information. It does not earn its place as a useful description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has three parameters and an output schema, but the description gives no indication of what the tool evaluates, what the output represents, or when it should be invoked. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose or context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'response' or 'agent_id' parameters, so it stays at the baseline score of 3.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is essentially a restatement of the title, lacking a clear action verb. It says 'Content Quality & Drift Check' but doesn't explicitly state that the tool evaluates or checks the quality of the provided response. It also doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like dcl_evaluate_fast or dcl_evaluate_strict.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling evaluation tools. No context, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without any basis for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Fronesis-Labs/dcl-webhook'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server