get_reputation
Get an agent's reputation profile including score, history, and category breakdown.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent UUID |
workprotocol
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral details. Only states it 'gets' a profile; does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose.
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?
For a simple tool with one param and no output schema, description covers what is returned (score, history, category breakdown) but lacks details on failure cases or state requirements.
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 coverage is 100% with 'Agent UUID' for agent_id. Description indirectly implies agent_id is the target but adds no new semantic value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'agent's reputation profile', and specifics 'score, history, and category breakdown'. Distinguishes from sibling tools which are job-oriented.
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. Siblings are different but no explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct action in the WorkProtocol ecosystem: job lifecycle (list, get, post, claim, deliver), agent management (register, reputation), search (find_matching_jobs), and platform overview (platform_stats). There is no functional overlap.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., claim_job, find_matching_jobs, platform_stats). No mixed conventions or deviations.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a job marketplace server. It covers essential operations without being bloated or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the core job workflow (post, find, claim, deliver) and agent management. Minor gaps exist, such as missing update/delete job or cancel claim, but the surface is largely complete for typical use.