macp-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

evaluate

Record a scored assessment of a proposal with confidence and recommendation before voting to support governed decision sessions.

Instructions

Record a scored assessment of a proposal before voting (optional step).

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "proposal_id": "<proposal_id>",
      "recommendation": "<recommendation>",
      "confidence": "<confidence>"
    },
    "name": "evaluate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Why.
`confidence`	Yes	Confidence from 0.0 to 1.0.
`session_id`	Yes	The MACP session id (from start_session).
`proposal_id`	Yes	Short identifier for the proposal, unique within the session.
`recommendation`	Yes	Your assessment of the proposal.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`sender`	Yes
`duplicate`	Yes
`message_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`proposal_id`	Yes
`session_state`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and 'Record' is consistent with a non-destructive write; no contradiction. The description adds workflow context (optional, pre-vote) but says nothing about whether repeated evaluations overwrite prior ones, or how the recorded assessment influences commit/vote.

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 ten-word sentence with the verb and object front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical carries the only differentiating information and could be expanded slightly without waste.

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?

With a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs purpose and workflow placement, which it delivers. It remains thin on the state effect of the call (does the evaluation persist per proposal, is it re-runnable), which matters for a multi-step session workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so session_id, proposal_id, confidence, recommendation and reason are all documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description's phrase 'scored assessment' loosely gestures at recommendation+confidence but adds no syntax or enum semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Record a scored assessment of a proposal'. The added 'before voting' clause separates it from the sibling vote tool, so an agent can tell the two apart without reading schemas, though it does not contrast with propose/get_commitment.

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?

'before voting (optional step)' states both the workflow position and that skipping is allowed, giving clear usage context. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or conditions under which the step should be skipped beyond the word 'optional'.

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

Deploy Server