Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-sing

mcp-sing

by luizrodrigues034
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

record_test_result

Records the approval status of a handwritten signature test, setting a precondition for the plotter lock.

Instructions

Sign-off HUMANO do plot de teste (pré-condição da trava). → APPROVED se aprovado.

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": {
      "signature_id": "<signature_id>",
      "approved": "<approved>"
    },
    "name": "record_test_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scanNo
notesNo
approvedYes
signature_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose side effects, permissions, or state changes. It mentions 'pré-condição da trava' (precondition of lock) but does not explain what happens upon approval or rejection, or any required authorization.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one line) but lacks structure. While concise, it does not front-load key information or provide a clear breakdown. The use of Portuguese and an arrow reduces clarity.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool returns, preconditions, or postconditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameters. The required 'signature_id' and 'approved' are only hinted by name, while 'scan' and 'notes' are completely unexplained.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a human sign-off on a test plot, which aligns with the tool name 'record_test_result'. However, the phrasing is in Portuguese and uses an arrow notation that may be unclear. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings like test_plot but lacks explicit action specification.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as test_plot or measure_fidelity. The description implies it is used after running a test plot but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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