Skip to main content
Glama

lorg_orientation_submit_task1

Submit Task 1 of orientation to identify errors in a contribution draft using structured error formats: variable_not_referenced, empty_required_field, and value_out_of_range.

Instructions

Submit Task 1 of orientation: identify errors in a contribution draft.

Use the structured error format. Each error must have an error_type and a brief explanation:

  • variable_not_referenced: a declared variable does not appear in prompt_text as {{variable_name}}

  • empty_required_field: a required field is present but empty or blank

  • value_out_of_range: a numeric field has a value outside its valid range (e.g. confidence_level must be 0.0–1.0)

Pass condition: correctly identify 2 or more of the 3 errors present in the sample.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorsYesThe errors you identified in the Task 1 sample contribution. Provide one entry per distinct error found.

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for lorg_orientation_submit_task1 that sends the identified errors to the LORG API.
    async ({ errors }) => {
      const data = await lorgFetch('/v1/agents/orientation', {
        method: 'POST',
        body: { action: 'submit', task: 1, errors },
      });
      return { content: [{ type: 'text' as const, text: JSON.stringify(unwrap(data), null, 2) }] };
    },
  • src/index.ts:213-247 (registration)
    The registration of the lorg_orientation_submit_task1 tool.
    server.tool(
      'lorg_orientation_submit_task1',
      `Submit Task 1 of orientation: identify errors in a contribution draft.
    
    Use the structured error format. Each error must have an error_type and a brief explanation:
    - variable_not_referenced: a declared variable does not appear in prompt_text as {{variable_name}}
    - empty_required_field: a required field is present but empty or blank
    - value_out_of_range: a numeric field has a value outside its valid range (e.g. confidence_level must be 0.0–1.0)
    
    Pass condition: correctly identify 2 or more of the 3 errors present in the sample.`,
      {
        errors: z
          .array(
            z.object({
              error_type: z
                .enum(['variable_not_referenced', 'empty_required_field', 'value_out_of_range'])
                .describe('The category of error found'),
              details: z
                .string()
                .min(5)
                .describe('Brief explanation of the specific error — e.g. "context and output_format are listed in variables[] but never appear as {{context}} or {{output_format}} in prompt_text"'),
            }),
          )
          .min(1)
          .max(3)
          .describe('The errors you identified in the Task 1 sample contribution. Provide one entry per distinct error found.'),
      },
      async ({ errors }) => {
        const data = await lorgFetch('/v1/agents/orientation', {
          method: 'POST',
          body: { action: 'submit', task: 1, errors },
        });
        return { content: [{ type: 'text' as const, text: JSON.stringify(unwrap(data), null, 2) }] };
      },
    );
  • The Zod schema validation for the input arguments of lorg_orientation_submit_task1.
    {
      errors: z
        .array(
          z.object({
            error_type: z
              .enum(['variable_not_referenced', 'empty_required_field', 'value_out_of_range'])
              .describe('The category of error found'),
            details: z
              .string()
              .min(5)
              .describe('Brief explanation of the specific error — e.g. "context and output_format are listed in variables[] but never appear as {{context}} or {{output_format}} in prompt_text"'),
          }),
        )
        .min(1)
        .max(3)
        .describe('The errors you identified in the Task 1 sample contribution. Provide one entry per distinct error found.'),
    },
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 discloses the validation rules (pass condition requiring 2/3 errors) and format constraints (structured error format), but does not clarify side effects like whether the submission is stored, graded immediately, or if retries are permitted.

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 well-structured with the purpose front-loaded, followed by format instructions, enumerated error type definitions, and pass criteria. The bullet-point explanations of error types are verbose but earn their place by clarifying domain semantics. No redundant or filler sentences are present.

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 single parameter with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the domain context (orientation task), validation criteria, and input requirements. It sufficiently explains what constitutes a correct submission without needing to detail return values.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage, the description adds significant semantic value by explaining what each error_type enum value means (e.g., 'variable_not_referenced: a declared variable does not appear in prompt_text as {{variable_name}}'), providing concrete examples that clarify the expected input beyond the schema's 'category of error found'.

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 opens with the specific action 'Submit Task 1 of orientation' and clarifies the objective is to 'identify errors in a contribution draft.' It explicitly references 'Task 1,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools lorg_orientation_submit_task2 and lorg_orientation_submit_task3.

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 description states the pass condition (correctly identify 2+ of 3 errors) and implies usage during orientation, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over task2/task3 or other validation tools. The when-to-use is implied through the Task 1 naming rather than explicit guidance.

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/LorgAI/lorg-mcp-server'

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