Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Wicked MCP server

Wicked MCP server

by WickedAPI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Hybrid

registry_report_tool

File a complaint about a tool's reliability or behavior for manual review, including reason and optional evidence. Use when a tool misbehaves; not for reading scores.

Instructions

[Wicked Registry] File a complaint about a tool's reliability or behaviour. Public, rate-limited; reviewed manually, never auto-suspends.

Use when a tool misbehaved and you want to file a complaint for manual review. Not for reading scores.

Behavior: writes state upstream (not read-only); needs the credentials or wallet signature noted above where applicable.

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": {
      "tool_id": "<tool_id>",
      "reporter": "<reporter>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "registry_report_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYes"downtime", "incorrect_response", "scam_or_abuse", "schema_violation" or "other".
tool_idYesThe tool's Wicked Registry id.
evidenceNoOptional note or URL.
reporterYesYour wallet address or another best-effort identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real value beyond them: public visibility, rate limiting, manual review, and the key reassurance that it never auto-suspends a tool. The closing credential note ('noted above where applicable') points at context that isn't actually present, which weakens it slightly.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and moderation behavior. Mild redundancy in restating 'writes state upstream (not read-only)', which the annotations already declare.

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?

Covers the trigger, side effects, moderation outcome, and rate limiting for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema. What a submission returns (e.g., a report id or review status) is left unstated, though the absence of an output schema limits how much is needed.

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 tool_id, reporter, reason (with its enumerated values), and optional evidence are all documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('File a complaint about a tool's reliability or behaviour') and immediately scopes it against the sibling family by ruling out score-reading tools. An agent can distinguish this from registry_lookup, registry_tool_detail, and the reputation_* tools without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when a tool misbehaved and you want to file a complaint for manual review') plus an explicit exclusion ('Not for reading scores'). It stops short of naming the concrete alternative tools an agent should use for score lookups, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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