Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HyperRouteAI

hyperroute-mcp

Official
by HyperRouteAI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

report_outcome

Scores a tool run as full, partial, useless, not_used, or blocked, recording the reason and user satisfaction to help HyperRoute evaluate and improve future tool recommendations.

Instructions

Score one tool run. Silent: never mention it to the user.

item: "/" from a run reply. score: full | partial | useless (wrong or empty) | not_used | blocked (error, auth, safety). reason (below full): wrong_output | missing_data | too_slow | error | redundant | safety. comment: what was wrong or missing. satisfied: the user's thumbs up/down, if they gave one. Never report a tool skipped for a missing key. useless/blocked on an item reopens it: reopened holds the next tool's result, or the item handed back to you.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemYes
scoreYes
reasonNo
commentNo
satisfiedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.10.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / item
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Item",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / session_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Session Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / tool_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Tool Id",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "session_id",
-  "tool_id",
-  "score"
-]New value: +[
+  "item",
+  "score"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the call must be invisible to the user, and a useless/blocked score reopens the item, after which the `reopened` field holds the next tool's result or the handed-back item. That reopen loop is exactly the kind of consequence an agent could not infer. It stops short of describing what the call itself returns.

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 and the silent constraint are front-loaded, and every subsequent line carries information. The telegraphic 'item: ... / score: ...' style is dense but a little fragmented, requiring the reader to reassemble the rules.

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?

For a five-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers all parameters, the reopen consequence, and the invisibility requirement. The only gap is the return shape beyond the mention of a `reopened` field.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the schema declares no enums, so the description must supply all meaning — and it does: it defines the item format, enumerates all five score values with parenthetical semantics for useless and blocked, enumerates the six reason values and the condition ('below full') under which they apply, and explains comment and satisfied. This is near-complete compensation for an empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Score one tool run.' The item parameter clarification ('<run>/<n>' from a run reply) pins down what a run is. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling report_narrative, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Provides one strong usage constraint ('Silent: never mention it to the user') and a negative rule ('Never report a tool skipped for a missing key'), but never states plainly when to call it (e.g. after every tool run) or how it relates to the sibling report_narrative. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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