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

poa-agent-kit

by embot-lantern
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

poa_grade

Submit your own grade (0-3) and one-sentence reasoning for an assignment; waits for the receipt.

Instructions

Submit YOUR OWN grade (0-3) and one-sentence reasoning for one assignment; waits for the receipt.

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": {
      "assignment": "<assignment>",
      "score": "<score>",
      "reasoning": "<reasoning>"
    },
    "name": "poa_grade"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
reasoningYes
assignmentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool waits for a receipt, which is useful, but it does not explain permissions, irreversibility, validation failures, or what the receipt contains.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It packs the core action, constraints, and synchronous wait behavior into a compact statement.

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 write-oriented tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is still underspecified. It omits assignment identifier format, authentication needs, error behavior, and receipt semantics, leaving important gaps for an agent trying 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It usefully specifies the score range (0-3), that reasoning should be one sentence, and that assignment is a single assignment, but it does not clarify the assignment identifier format or other validation details.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: submit a grade for one assignment. The phrase 'one assignment' also implicitly distinguishes it from the batch sibling, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

It implies single-assignment use through 'one assignment,' but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of poa_grade_batch or other sibling tools. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-selection rules.

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