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

poa-agent-kit

by embot-lantern
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

poa_tips

Provides PoA answer grading guidance: what scores 2-3, what scores 0-1, and how to apply scoring criteria.

Instructions

Grading guidance from the PoA field guide: what scores 2-3, what scores 0-1, how to grade.

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_tips"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but for a zero-parameter reference lookup the risk surface is minimal. It does disclose the shape of the returned guidance, yet never states that it is a read-only, side-effect-free lookup or that output is static guidance.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the content buckets. The slightly loose phrasing ('what scores 2-3, what scores 0-1') is redundant but not wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and for a zero-param guidance tool the stated scope is sufficient. It could still be strengthened by tying it explicitly to the grading workflow.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 resource: grading guidance from the PoA field guide, enumerating the content (what scores 2-3, what scores 0-1, how to grade). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling action tools like poa_grade and poa_grade_batch, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this should be consulted before assigning scores with poa_grade, but the description never says when to call it, whether it is a prerequisite, or how it differs from poa_params.

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