Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@spoc/mcp-bridge

@spoc/mcp-bridge

Official
by SPOC-App
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Report a witnessed event on a harness

spoc.harness.report

Reports one authenticated event to an issued harness using HMAC-SHA256 and strictly monotonic offsets, enabling ordered event tracking.

Instructions

Report a single event on an issued harness. Authenticated with an HMAC-SHA256 over harness_id || '\n' || offset || '\n' || event_type || '\n' || canonical_json(payload), keyed by the reporting_key returned at issuance. Offsets must be strictly monotonic starting at 0.

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": {
      "harness_id": "<harness_id>",
      "offset": "<offset>",
      "event_type": "<event_type>",
      "payload": "<payload>",
      "hmac_signature": "<hmac_signature>"
    },
    "name": "spoc.harness.report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetYes
payloadYes
event_typeYes
harness_idYes
hmac_signatureYes64 hex chars (HMAC-SHA256 output).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 substantial work: it discloses the HMAC-SHA256 authentication scheme, the exact signed string composition, the key source (reporting_key from issuance), and the monotonic-offset ordering rule. Gaps remain around replay/duplicate-offset handling, idempotency, and error behavior, which matters for an append-style write.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core action first, then auth, then the ordering constraint. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 5-required-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns an agent would otherwise get wrong: signing payload layout and offset monotonicity. It omits what a successful report returns (offset acknowledgement) and the event_type vocabulary.

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?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only hmac_signature is documented), so the description must compensate — and it does, defining how harness_id, offset, event_type, and payload are jointly signed and where the key comes from. It still leaves payload shape and the valid event_type vocabulary unexplained, so not a 5.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource — 'Report a single event on an issued harness' — which is clearly distinct from the sibling spoc.harness.issue (creation) and from harness.get/verify/complete. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of 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?

It implies a prerequisite ('issued harness') and states a hard constraint ('Offsets must be strictly monotonic starting at 0'), which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over harness.test, harness.verify, or harness.complete, nor what to do about gaps or re-reporting.

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