Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agent-Comm-Hub

Agent-Comm-Hub

by liuboacean
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

check_veto_window

Check veto window status: determine if a strategy is within a 48-hour window where admin can withdraw it when negative feedback exceeds positive by over 50%.

Instructions

检查策略的否决窗口状态。处于 48h 否决窗口内的策略，如果负面反馈超过正面反馈的 50%，可被 admin 撤回。

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": {
      "strategy_id": "<strategy_id>"
    },
    "name": "check_veto_window"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
strategy_idYes策略 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.4.6

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. The description explains the tool's behavior (checking veto window with condition) but does not detail side effects or return format. Adequate but not rich.

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 purpose. No waste, efficient.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and key condition, but lacks return value specification.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter described. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, which is sufficient for a simple parameter.

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?

The description clearly states the tool checks the veto window status of a strategy, with specific context about the 48-hour window and withdrawal condition. It distinguishes from siblings like 'veto_strategy' and 'feedback_strategy'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use (checking strategy's veto eligibility) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. However, the context of siblings helps clarify its role.

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