Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hvip MCP Server

hvip MCP Server

by okx-wallet-H
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

agent_hub_review

Submit verdicts (approved/rejected) and feedback for agent tasks. Enables quality control and review of task outcomes.

Instructions

[L:READ] CAT:[系统] | → 请先调用 agent_catalog

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>",
      "verdict": "<verdict>"
    },
    "name": "agent_hub_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskIdYes任务编号
verdictYes审核结果
feedbackNo审核意见，驳回时必填

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only contains a prerequisite and an informal 'L:READ' tag, which may conflict with the apparent write nature of the tool (submitting a review with 'approved' or 'rejected'). No explanation of side effects or permissions.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely brief (one short line), but it is underspecified and lacks essential information. It is not concise in a beneficial way; it omits the tool's core purpose and any useful context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with enums and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the task IDs mean, what the review process entails, or what happens when the tool is invoked. The agent cannot understand the tool's role from this description.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not improve upon the baseline.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description does not explicitly state what the tool does. It only says '请先调用 agent_catalog' (please call agent_catalog first), which is a prerequisite rather than a purpose. There is no verb+resource identifying the tool's action.

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?

The description provides a prerequisite ('call agent_catalog first'), which is a form of usage guidance. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools, nor does it explain the context for using this tool.

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