Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
poa-agent-kit

poa-agent-kit

by embot-lantern
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

poa_challenge

Retrieve this epoch's challenge, including the three required words and task, so you can write your own answer.

Instructions

Get this epoch's challenge: the 3 required words and the task. Write the answer yourself.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "poa_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 discloses the shape of the return ('3 required words and the task') but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether the challenge is epoch-scoped or rotates, or any constraints on calling it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource and its payload, followed by a short directive. Every clause earns its place with no padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description is just adequate: it explains what comes back, but omits why the agent needs it, how it fits the epoch lifecycle, and any failure/availability behavior. Nothing critical is contradicted, but the picture is incomplete.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add and the baseline is 4. The description's reference to 'this epoch' is the only input-like notion, and it is implied rather than a declared argument.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Get this epoch's challenge') plus the payload ('the 3 required words and the task'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with siblings like poa_answer or poa_check_answer, so the agent must infer the pipeline position.

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?

'Write the answer yourself' hints at the workflow (fetch, then answer) but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, prerequisites, or alternates. Nothing tells the agent how this relates to poa_answer, poa_check_answer, or poa_grade beyond a faint implication of ordering.

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