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

poa-agent-kit

by embot-lantern
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

poa_check_answer

Check a draft answer's length and required words without sending it. Does not edit or write text.

Instructions

Check a draft answer's length and required words without sending it. Does not edit or write text.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "poa_check_answer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is non-mutating ('Does not edit or write text'), which is genuine value, but it says nothing about permissions, whether requirements differ per context, or what a failing check looks like in the response.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its non-mutating constraint both front-loaded. Nothing here needs trimming.

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 single-parameter, non-mutating check tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and that it does not send or edit. It stops short of describing the return shape (pass/fail, length and word diagnostics), which the agent must guess.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; it does implicitly identify 'text' as the draft answer being checked. However, it adds no format, length-limit, or required-word details beyond that framing.

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?

States a specific verb (Check) and a specific resource (a draft answer's length and required words), and the phrase 'without sending it' implicitly separates it from the sibling poa_answer. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it falls 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?

'Without sending it' implies this is the pre-flight variant to use before submitting, but no condition or named alternative (e.g. poa_answer) is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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