Skip to main content
Glama

veto_record_outcome

Record quality scores and metadata for completed tasks to train the self-learning router, automatically improving task routing decisions over time.

Instructions

Records a task outcome (quality score) to feed the self-learning router. Call after completing any task. The router auto-applies learned tier thresholds every 20 recorded outcomes (disable via config auto_apply_learning=false); veto_learning_apply forces an update on demand.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoThe worker agent type used (optional but useful for agent performance tracking).
file_extNoFile extension of the primary file worked on (e.g. ".ts", ".sql", ".tsx"). Enables predictive agent routing — next time you work on the same extension, veto_route_task will recommend the best agent.
task_typeYesShort consistent label for the task category (e.g. "write-unit-tests", "fix-auth-bug"). Use the same label for similar tasks to enable pattern detection.
complexityYesThe complexity score from veto_route_task (0–100).
model_tierYesThe tier that was actually used (1, 2, or 3).
tokens_usedNoApproximate tokens used (optional).
output_qualityYesOutput quality score 0–100. 90–100=excellent, 70–89=good, 50–69=acceptable, 30–49=poor, 0–29=failed.
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that it writes data (no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false) and explains the auto-apply behavior and config flag, adding context beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, then key behavior details. No unnecessary words.

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?

Covers main usage, auto-apply mechanism, and config option. No output schema, but return value is not critical for this write tool. Missing error handling or validation notes, but adequate for agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra parameter info beyond schema, which is already clear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states verb 'Records' and resource 'task outcome (quality score)' with purpose 'to feed the self-learning router'. Differentiates from siblings like veto_learning_apply and veto_route_task.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Call after completing any task' and explains automatic learning application every 20 outcomes, with option to disable or force update via veto_learning_apply.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jigyasudham/veto'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server