Skip to main content
Glama

404.directory

by io.github.MM-sheng

Report a preflight outcome

report_tool_outcome
Idempotent

Close the feedback loop for one prior evaluate_tool_risk receipt. Call after the Agent proceeds, changes tools, requests review, or aborts. Submit only the bounded action/result fields and one-time outcome token returned by the evaluation; never include prompts, arguments, outputs, secrets, or personal data. The outcome is labeled self-reported and cannot directly increase a Trust score.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
error_typeNo
receipt_idYesReceipt UUID returned by evaluate_tool_risk.
action_takenYes
outcome_tokenYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral context: 'The outcome is labeled self-reported and cannot directly increase a Trust score' and 'one-time outcome token,' which clarifies the tool's effect and limitations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, followed by constraints. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

The description covers when to call, what to submit, and security constraints, but it does not specify when error_type should be provided (e.g., only for failures). This is a notable gap for a tool that reports outcomes, as the agent needs to know how to fill all relevant fields correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (only receipt_id has a description). The description mentions 'bounded action/result fields and one-time outcome token,' but does not explain the meaning of each parameter, especially error_type. With low schema coverage, this is insufficient to guide correct parameter usage.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Close the feedback loop') and a clear resource ('one prior evaluate_tool_risk receipt'), which distinguishes it from siblings like report_prediction_market_outcome. It also mentions the interaction with evaluate_tool_risk, making the tool's role unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Call after the Agent proceeds, changes tools, requests review, or aborts.' It also sets clear constraints on what not to include (prompts, arguments, outputs, secrets, personal data), giving guidance for safe and correct usage.

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

All 404.directory toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Potential overlap exists among search_tools, recommend_tools, list_capabilities, and get_capability_graph, but each serves a different purpose (query vs. recommendation vs. high-level list vs. relational graph). inspect_tool_server vs. get_tool (server vs. tool) and verify_web vs. understand_webpage (reachability vs. content) are clearly separated. Minor ambiguity between list_capabilities and get_capability_graph, but descriptions clarify.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_tools, get_tool, search_tools, verify_web). No mixing of camelCase or inconsistent styles. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

12 tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and appropriate for a directory service that provides search, retrieval, comparison, recommendation, inspection, invocation, and web verification. The count is comprehensive without being overwhelming, and each tool adds distinct value.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core directory operations (search, get, compare, recommend) and additional utilities (inspect, invoke, trust score, capability graph). It lacks a direct 'list all tools' or 'list all servers' endpoint, but search_tools and list_capabilities can approximate this. The inclusion of web verification and understanding tools extends beyond the catalog domain, but they are useful adjuncts. Overall, the surface is well-rounded with minor gaps.

Resources