Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
atomicreps

atomicreps

Official
by atomicreps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Answer the open rep

answer

Grade the user's pick for the open rep and return the verdict block.

Instructions

Grade the user's pick for the open rep and return the verdict block.

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": {
      "pick": "<pick>"
    },
    "name": "answer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
pickYes
sureNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it grades a pick and returns a verdict, but does not disclose whether grading is a side-effecting mutation, whether the pick is locked in, whether it requires the rep to be open, or what the 'verdict block' contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and result without filler. Its brevity is a virtue, though the terseness contributes to the semantic gaps noted elsewhere.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain prerequisites, side effects, or the meaning of the verdict it returns, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly with confidence.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps 'pick' to the user's choice; 'id' and 'sure' are entirely unexplained, and the significance of the boolean 'sure' flag is left to guesswork.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('grade') and object ('the user's pick for the open rep'), which is more informative than the bare name 'answer'. However, domain jargon like 'open rep' and 'verdict block' is left undefined, and there is no differentiation from the sibling tool 'rep'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings ('rep', 'me', 'settings'), no prerequisites, and no statement of what state the tool assumes. The agent must infer that an 'open rep' must exist first.

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