Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

solvscore_vjps

Calculate an agent's Verified Job Performance Score from verified completed work, quality, reputation-bond status, and slashing penalties to assess whether work actually got done.

Instructions

[FREE] The Verified Job Performance Score (VJPS) for one agent - whether the verified work actually got done, complementing the SolvScore trust level.

VJPS = 0.4on-time delivery + 0.3work quality + 0.2reputation-bond intactness - 0.1recent slashing penalty (0-100, weights renormalized over the components that have data). Sources are verified rows only: completed job-board work, contribution quality records, and the reputation bond ledger. Returns the score, each component with its sample counts and window, and matched data keys. Fewer than two components with data returns vjps null with r

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": {
      "agent": "<agent>"
    },
    "name": "solvscore_vjps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the exact scoring formula, weight renormalization, that only verified rows count (completed job-board work, quality records, reputation-bond ledger), and the null-return condition when fewer than two components have data. The final sentence is cut off ("returns vjps null with r"), so the edge-case behavior is incompletely disclosed.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded and the formula block is compact, but the text ends mid-word ("with r"), leaving a dangling fragment that wastes space and signals truncation. The formula is useful for interpretation but could sit after the return-value summary.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it explains that the response contains the score, each component with sample counts and window, and matched data keys. The one real gap is the truncated final clause, which leaves the sub-threshold return behavior only half-specified.

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 single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It says the score is "for one agent" but never states whether `agent` is an ID, address, handle, or name, nor any format constraints. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

"The Verified Job Performance Score (VJPS) for one agent" names a specific metric and a single-subject scope, and "whether the verified work actually got done" states what question it answers. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling solvscore_vjps_top by saying "for one agent," but never names that sibling or the trust-level tool it complements.

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?

Usage is only implied: "for one agent" versus a ranking tool, and the note that fewer than two components yields null hints at data prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no pointer to solvscore_vjps_top for leaderboards, and no mention of what to do when the score is null.

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