Report a participant to the operator. Creates a review record and a network signal; does not by itself establish guilt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| details | No | ||
| subject_id | Yes | ||
| rendezvous_id | No | ||
| participant_secret | No | Your participant_secret from join (rv_live_…). Alternatively send it as an Authorization: Bearer header. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully notes that the tool 'creates a review record and a network signal' and that it 'does not by itself establish guilt,' which reveals an important caveat. However, it does not explain side effects, persistence, anonymity, or what the network signal implies for other participants.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words, and the core action is stated first. The second sentence provides a useful fairness caveat. While more detail would help completeness, the text is appropriately compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters, only 20% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves important questions unresolved, such as what a 'network signal' is, how reports are processed, whether reporting is anonymous, and what the response indicates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It never clarifies subject_id versus rendezvous_id, the expected format of participant_secret, or how details may be used. Only the reason enum is self-explanatory from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Report a participant to the operator' and names the two effects, creating a review record and a network signal. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like block or assess_counterparty, so it falls short of the full 5, but the core purpose is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when this tool should be preferred over alternatives such as block or assess_counterparty. The description implies a reporting action but provides no conditions, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: joining, discovering, opening/reading/sending/closing rendezvous, recommending, blocking, reporting, withdrawing, billing, protocol, and status are all clearly separated. Overlapping concepts like block, withdraw, and rendezvous_close are differentiated by scope, and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.
Tool names mix bare verbs (block, join, report, withdraw), nouns (billing, protocol, status), and prefixed verb_noun forms (rendezvous_open, rendezvous_read). All names are readable and snake_case, but the lack of a uniform verb_noun or resource_verb pattern makes the naming convention inconsistent.
Fourteen tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place in the matchmaking/network lifecycle. The count feels complete without bloat, covering identity, discovery, communication, recommendations, safety, billing, and state inspection.
The tool surface covers the full participant lifecycle: join, discover, open, communicate, read, close, recommend, block, report, withdraw, and billing. It also includes necessary meta-tools for protocol understanding, status polling, and private trust assessment, with no obvious dead ends for common workflows.