Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Errata MCP Server

Errata MCP Server

Official
by formachines-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Report whether a correction worked

report

Submit a confirm or dispute verdict for a correction entry ID so quarantined feedback is rechecked in the sandbox before any changes apply.

Instructions

Send confirm (the fix worked) or dispute (it did not) for an entry id. Reports are quarantined and rechecked in the sandbox before anything changes.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "verdict": "<verdict>"
    },
    "name": "report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
noteNo
verdictYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world), the description discloses a key trait: reports are quarantined and rechecked in the sandbox before anything changes, so effects are deferred. It doesn't say what the caller gets back or how long rechecking takes, but the core behavior is surfaced.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the behavioral caveat second. No filler, though the parentheticals could be integrated more smoothly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could say what is returned or what quarantine means for the caller's next step; it only states that something changes later. Adequate but with a real gap for a mutating, non-idempotent tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description does add meaning for the verdict enum (confirm = fix worked, dispute = it did not) and ties it to an entry id. The optional 'note' parameter and the id format are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb (send confirm/dispute) and resource (an entry id), clarifying the vague name 'report'. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the siblings search_error and check_package.

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 implied by the parentheticals 'the fix worked'/'it did not', i.e. call after applying a fix. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for other situations.

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