Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cc-agent

cc-agent

by Gonzih
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

set_job_score

Record a quality score (0.0 to 1.0) on a completed job to evaluate variant performance in evolutionary plans.

Instructions

Set a quality score (0.0–1.0) on a completed job. Used by evaluator agents in evolutionary branching plans to record how well each variant performed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "score": "<score>"
    },
    "name": "set_job_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYesScore from 0.0 to 1.0
job_idYesJob ID to score
reasonNoOptional reason or explanation for the score

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.16.15

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It notes the score range (0.0-1.0) and implies the job must be completed, but does not disclose whether the score can be overwritten, what happens if the job is not completed, or other behavioral traits like idempotency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and context. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage context, and parameter range. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites, but overall is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters adequately. The description adds context about the tool's purpose but does not augment parameter meanings beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action (Set a quality score), resource (completed job), and context (used by evaluator agents in evolutionary branching plans). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, none of which perform scoring.

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?

The description explicitly mentions the intended users (evaluator agents) and scenario (evolutionary branching plans), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though no alternative exists among siblings.

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