Skip to main content
Glama
dreamforgestudiollc

EMET

by dreamforgestudiollc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

accept_nonconformance

Record a written acceptance for a nonconformance that will not be corrected, retaining the marker with its reason for audit instead of clearing it silently.

Instructions

Record the written disposition for a nonconformance that will not be corrected. A marker is never cleared silently: it leaves either because a later revision passes, or because someone accepts it in writing here. The marker is RETAINED with the acceptance beside it, and the acceptance covers only the revision it names - the next write is validated fresh, and accepted markers stay counted at session start, separately from open ones. The reason must be at least 10 characters: it is what an audit reads later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doc_idYesDocument carrying the open marker.
reasonYesWhy this nonconformance is accepted rather than corrected. At least 10 characters.
sourceNoSource tag - which host produced this write. One name on every write since 2026-09-27.
exchangeNoThe exchange (turn) this write belongs to, counting from 1. A write for exchange n while exchange n-1 was never appended is refused by the session graph until n-1 is appended.
session_idNoTranscript session id.
accepted_byNoAlias of `source` (the older name, kept one release). Prefer `source`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / exchange / description
      Previous value: -"The exchange (turn) this write belongs to, counting from 1. A write for exchange n while exchange n-1 was never appended is flagged by the session graph."New value: +"The exchange (turn) this write belongs to, counting from 1. A write for exchange n while exchange n-1 was never appended is refused by the session graph until n-1 is appended."
    • changedInput schema / properties / session_id / description
      Previous value: -"Your transcript session id from emet_session_open. The session graph reads this session's state before the write and returns `session_graph.next` - the next step."New value: +"Transcript session id."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive; the description adds far more: the marker is RETAINED rather than cleared, the acceptance covers only the named revision so the next write is validated fresh, and accepted markers are counted separately from open ones at session start. It also states the audit-facing durability of the reason.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered with genuinely useful lifecycle behavior. Every sentence carries weight, though the closing constraint note slightly overlaps the schema and keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 6-param write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle, persistence, and validation semantics well. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives, but an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so doc_id, reason, source, exchange, etc. are already documented. The description reinforces the ≥10-character reason constraint and its audit purpose, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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: 'Record the written disposition for a nonconformance that will not be corrected.' It makes the scope unmistakable (only for nonconformances deliberately left uncorrected) and clearly separates this action from the alternative path where a revision later passes.

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?

It gives clear selection context: use it when a marker will not be corrected, since it otherwise leaves only via a passing revision. However, it never names the sibling tools (e.g. validate_doc or write_doc) that represent the other path, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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