Skip to main content
Glama

glimind

by io.github.shawndei

report_outcome

After you call a tool (especially one Glimind routed you to), report what happened in ONE call — did it work, how long it took, and (on failure) the error class. This closes the loop: it's how Glimind learns which tools actually work for which tasks, so its answers get sharper for you and everyone. It is FREE, keyless, and privacy-preserving — send only the tool id + success/failure + latency + a normalized error class, NEVER your inputs, outputs, or prompts. Call it every time you use a routed tool. (The Glimind SDK's execute() does this automatically.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesDid the call succeed? true = success, false = failure.
taskNoOptional coarse task label to sharpen intent→tool routing.
toolIdYesThe tool you called ('server/tool_name' — e.g. from route_task's chosen.toolId).
latencyMsNoHow long the call took, in milliseconds (optional).
errorClassNoOn failure, a normalized class: timeout | auth | rate_limit | server | not_found | schema | network | unavailable (optional).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. States it's free, keyless, privacy-preserving, and that the SDK's execute() does this automatically. No contradictions, but could mention idempotency or rate limits; still strong transparency.

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?

Description is a single paragraph but well-structured: starts with purpose, then value, then instructions. Could be slightly more front-loaded, but no wasted sentences. Efficient and clear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fully complete. It explains purpose, when to use, what to send, what to avoid, and even provides a sibling reference (SDK's execute). No gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by specifying that toolId should come from route_task's chosen.toolId, errorClass should be normalized, and clarifies what NOT to send (inputs/outputs/prompts).

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 'report' and resource 'outcome of a tool call', specifying fields to include and exclude. Distinguishes from siblings by focusing on feedback/learning after routing, unique among sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Call it every time you use a routed tool' and explains it's free and keyless, providing clear context for use. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the condition 'after calling a tool' is sufficiently bounded.

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

All glimind 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct, well-defined purpose: checking reliability, discovering tools, finding alternatives, getting recipes, routing tasks, etc. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., check_tool_reliability, route_task, watch_tool). The only minor deviation is 'how_to_use_glimind', which still follows a clear verb phrase convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a comprehensive meta-layer covering discovery, reliability checking, preparation, batch routing, reporting, and notifications. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full workflow of discovering, checking, preparing, calling, and reporting on tools. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'list all tools' catalog, but the discovery tools effectively fill this need.

Resources