Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Reputation

by io.github.SamyTouri

Contribution receipts (public registry)

list_contributions
Read-only

The public registry of contribution receipts (FC-xxxx): recognized work recorded with the artifact it produced. Receipts remain separate from interaction-rating signals and create no membership, governance or financial right. A credited receipt is attached only after the source identity is proven through its recorded channel; typing the same handle is not proof.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
handleNoOnly receipts credited to (or proven by) this handle

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / handle / description
      Previous value: -"Only receipts credited to (or claimed by) this handle"New value: +"Only receipts credited to (or proven by) this handle"
    • addedInput schema / properties / handle / maxLength
      Added value: +200
    • addedInput schema / properties / handle / minLength
      Added value: +1
  3. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds context about identity proof and the nature of receipts, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. However, it does not disclose behavior like pagination, ordering, or what happens with no handle provided.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with four sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids redundancy while explaining key distinctions.

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?

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description could detail the return structure or results format. It provides high-level context but lacks specifics about what the output contains.

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 parameter 'handle' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces that identity must be proven, adding nuance but no new technical details.

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 description clearly states that this tool provides the public registry of contribution receipts, distinguishing it from interaction ratings and membership rights. However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the title implies listing.

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 explains that receipts are separate from ratings and do not convey rights, which helps avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like list_agents or get_reputation.

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

All Agent Reputation 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action—complaints, ratings, contacts, registration, stats, etc. Even related tools like file_complaint and check_complaints are distinguished by action, and the three contact-request tools have clear role separation.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_, claim_, file_, give_, list_, register_, request_, respond_, submit_, talk_to_), but three informational tools—complaint_bureau, hub_stats, prepurchase_brief—use noun phrases instead. This is a minor deviation from an otherwise consistent convention.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well-scoped for a reputation platform covering complaints, ratings, contacts, registration, and support. Each tool earns its place, and none feel redundant or excessive.

Completeness2/5

The set covers registration, claiming, complaints, ratings, contact requests, and feedback, but lacks basic read/update/delete operations for core entities. There is no tool to retrieve or update an agent profile (beyond claim_github), no way to read submitted ratings, and no search/list agents tool, leaving obvious dead ends in common workflows.

Resources