{
  "fixes": {
    "slug": "bark",
    "name": "Bark",
    "listing": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/bark",
    "markdown": "# Fix list: Bark\n\nFrom Anchor Terminal's listing at https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/bark, the October 2026 research run, assessed 14 October 2026. Grade F, 16.5 out of 100.\n\nThis is everything the published grade says the listing lacks, the biggest possible gain to the total first. It comes from the reason given for each score, the checklist each category was scored against (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist), the provenance checks, the deductions, what we couldn't check and what the review panel asked for. A fix counts at the next check, once it's public.\n\nFor a coding agent working on Bark: work through the items below in the product, its docs and its public pages. Each category gives the reason for its score, with the points each checklist item earned, and the checklist itself, so the gap is the items that earned less than their points. Change the product, not the wording, and keep a note of what you changed and where it's published.\n\n## 1. Security \u0026 auth, 0 out of 100, up to 17.5 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 0: Graded on the interface an outside agent can use. The Zapier connection method isn't described on the page read (0 of 30). Purchase Bark spends a professional's credits, with no documented confirmation (0 of 20). Lead text is written by customers, with no injection guidance (0 of 15). No audit log found (0 of 15). www.bark.com/.well-known/security.txt returns 404, and no disclosure policy, bug bounty or certification was found (0 of 20).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security):\n\n- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.\n\nModels are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing.\n\n## 2. Reliability, 15 out of 100, up to 17 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 15: Read with the hosted lines. No status page found, and status.bark.com does not resolve (0). No readable incident history (5). No limits published, and no interface for an outside agent (0). No overload or retry guidance (0). No SLA (0). The website and apps are in general use, not labelled beta (10).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability):\n\nHosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.\n\n- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.\n\nLocal packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.\n\n- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.\n\nProtocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors.\n\n## 3. Agent ergonomics, 5 out of 100, up to 15.4 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 5: Graded on the Zapier app. Context cost can't be judged without the field definitions (0 of 25). Search Barks filters by category, location and request age, with no documented limits or pagination (5 of 20). No errors documented (0). Purchase Bark spends credits, with no idempotency or retry guidance (0). No SDK (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics):\n\n- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.\n\nModels are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs.\n\n## 4. Schema \u0026 documentation, 7 out of 100, up to 15.1 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 7: Graded on the interface an outside agent can use, which for Bark is only the Zapier app acting for a professional. No contract is published (0 of 25). www.bark.com/llms.txt returns 404 (0). Each Zapier trigger, action and search has a one-line description, with no when-not-to-use guidance (5 of 20). Field types and constraints are not shown on the public page (0 of 15). No examples or error responses (0 of 15). Zapier shows BarkCLIAPI 1.7.0 with no changelog (2 of 15).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema):\n\nAPIs and MCP servers.\n\n- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.\n\nModels are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference.\n\n## 5. Payments \u0026 pricing, 20 out of 100, up to 10 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 20: Read with the hosted rule. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Credits are priced per lead by service, job value and demand, with no credit pack price published (0). Free for customers, and professionals see leads free (20). A person signs up on the website or in an app (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments):\n\nThe published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).\n\n- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).\n\nPayment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.\n\nOpen-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol.\n\n## 6. Transparency \u0026 trust, 49 out of 100, up to 4.5 more on the total\n\nMade of editorial 38, provenance 59.\n\nWhy it scored 49: Closed service under customer terms last updated 5 September 2025, naming Bark.com Global Limited with company number, office and VAT number (15). The privacy notice of 9 February 2026 names the controller, says data is kept no longer than necessary and then deleted or deidentified, describes transfers outside the EEA and processor categories, without retention periods (18 of 30). Changes are notified by updating the date, with no deprecation policy (0). Processors by category, with two add-on partners named (Synup Inc, Cyberstaff Limited) (5 of 20).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency):\n\n- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).\n\nThe other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two.\n\nProvenance checks not met in full (half of this category, computed from checked facts):\n\n- Terms of service: read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 2 clauses that cost points (5.1 of 10)\n- Status page: not found (0 of 10)\n- Changelog: not found (0 of 10)\n- security.txt: not found (0 of 10)\n\n## 7. Maintenance \u0026 community, 54 out of 100, up to 4 more on the total\n\nWhy it scored 54: Read for a closed service. Customer app 1.78.1 on 13 October 2026 (30). Twelve versions from 30 June to 13 October (20). A help centre with a support contact article, no changelog (4 of 15). No MCP server or SDK (0). No package or CI to judge (0).\n\nThe checklist (https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance):\n\n- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.\n\nModels are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts.\n\n## What we couldn't check\n\nWhat we couldn't read counted as absent. Publishing it on a page a plain HTTP fetch can read (not only in a browser) lets the next check count it.\n\n- Credit pack prices and the credit cost of a typical lead.\n- Who built and maintains the Bark app on Zapier, and how it authenticates.\n- Whether Bark's privacy notice reference to users who reach Bark through APIs means a partner API exists.\n\n## Weaknesses\n\n- No public API or MCP server an outside agent can call for a household\n- No credit pack prices published, and a lead's credit cost depends on job value and demand\n- The Zapier app's Purchase Bark action spends credits, with no documented confirmation step\n- No status page, security.txt or developer documentation found\n\n## What costs an agent a turn today\n\nThe notes we give agents before they call it. Each one is a workaround an agent shouldn't need.\n\n- Don't plan to call Bark for a household. Hand the request to the person on bark.com or the app\n- For a professional's own leads, use the Bark app on Zapier, and ask before any Purchase Bark step, which spends credits\n- Tell a professional that credits expire 3 months after purchase\n\n## When it's done\n\nSend what changed and where it's published as a dispute (https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes, or `POST https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/contact` with `\"kind\": \"dispute\"`). Disputes are answered in public, and the listing is checked again by the same checklist. Paying for an audit or a listing claim changes nothing here.\n",
    "grade": "F",
    "score": 16.5,
    "assessed": "2026-10-14",
    "run": "October 2026 research run",
    "categories": [
      {
        "key": "security",
        "name": "Security \u0026 auth",
        "score": 0,
        "maxGain": 17.5,
        "reason": "Graded on the interface an outside agent can use. The Zapier connection method isn't described on the page read (0 of 30). Purchase Bark spends a professional's credits, with no documented confirmation (0 of 20). Lead text is written by customers, with no injection guidance (0 of 15). No audit log found (0 of 15). www.bark.com/.well-known/security.txt returns 404, and no disclosure policy, bug bounty or certification was found (0 of 20).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, the credential model. 30 for OAuth 2.1 with scopes, or scoped and revocable keys with rotation. 20 for plain revocable API keys. 10 for one all-powerful key. 10 off when a secret can travel in a URL query string as a documented option.\n- 0 to 20, read-only or least-privilege modes, and confirmation or approval for destructive actions.\n- 0 to 15, prompt-injection posture where the tool returns untrusted content (documented mitigations or guidance). A tool that returns no untrusted content gets 10.\n- 0 to 15, audit logs or per-call visibility for the operator.\n- 0 to 20, a security programme. security.txt or a disclosure policy, a bug bounty, SOC 2 or ISO 27001, advisories handled in public.",
          "Models are read for retention, whether API data trains models (and whether that's off by default), zero-retention options and certifications. Frameworks for telemetry defaults, approval hooks, guardrails and sandboxing."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-security"
      },
      {
        "key": "reliability",
        "name": "Reliability",
        "score": 15,
        "maxGain": 17,
        "reason": "Read with the hosted lines. No status page found, and status.bark.com does not resolve (0). No readable incident history (5). No limits published, and no interface for an outside agent (0). No overload or retry guidance (0). No SLA (0). The website and apps are in general use, not labelled beta (10).",
        "checklist": [
          "Hosted APIs, MCP servers, models and platforms.",
          "- 20, a public status page with component history (Statuspage, Instatus, BetterStack or the vendor's own).\n- 0 to 30, the incident record for the last 90 days on that page. 30 for a clean record or trivial incidents only, 20 for minor incidents only, 10 for one major outage (an hour or more of a core API down, or errors across the board), 0 for several. 5 when there's no history we could read, and the note says so.\n- 15, rate limits documented with numbers.\n- 15, documented 429 or overload handling (Retry-After, backoff guidance), and idempotency keys or safe-retry guidance where writes are involved.\n- 10, an SLA published for any paid tier.\n- 10, the surface agents use is generally available, not beta or preview.",
          "Local packages, SDKs, frameworks and stdio MCP servers.",
          "- 20, installs from an official package with supported runtimes stated.\n- 25, a public CI and test suite, passing on the default branch.\n- 0 to 25, open crash or regression issues relative to activity (25 for few and handled, 0 for many, old and unanswered).\n- 15, semver discipline and breaking changes called out in a changelog.\n- 15, version 1.0 or later, or declared stable.",
          "Protocols are read from their reference implementations, the public facilitators or servers, spec stability and test vectors."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-reliability"
      },
      {
        "key": "ergonomics",
        "name": "Agent ergonomics",
        "score": 5,
        "maxGain": 15.4,
        "reason": "Graded on the Zapier app. Context cost can't be judged without the field definitions (0 of 25). Search Barks filters by category, location and request age, with no documented limits or pagination (5 of 20). No errors documented (0). Purchase Bark spends credits, with no idempotency or retry guidance (0). No SDK (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 25, context cost. For MCP, the number and size of the tool definitions (25 for ten or fewer compact tools, 15 for 11 to 30, 5 for more than 30, plus up to 10 back for toolsets, dynamic loading or read-only subsets). For APIs, whether responses can be sized (field selection, limits, summaries).\n- 20, pagination, filtering and output-size controls.\n- 20, actionable, documented error responses, codes and messages an agent can recover from.\n- 20, idempotency or safe retries, and for MCP the `readOnlyHint` and `destructiveHint` annotations.\n- 15, sensible defaults, few required parameters, and official SDKs in at least two languages.",
          "Models are read for tool use, structured output, prompt caching, context length, batch and SDKs. Frameworks for how much code and how many defaults a tool-calling agent with MCP needs."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-ergonomics"
      },
      {
        "key": "schema",
        "name": "Schema \u0026 documentation",
        "score": 7,
        "maxGain": 15.1,
        "reason": "Graded on the interface an outside agent can use, which for Bark is only the Zapier app acting for a professional. No contract is published (0 of 25). www.bark.com/llms.txt returns 404 (0). Each Zapier trigger, action and search has a one-line description, with no when-not-to-use guidance (5 of 20). Field types and constraints are not shown on the public page (0 of 15). No examples or error responses (0 of 15). Zapier shows BarkCLIAPI 1.7.0 with no changelog (2 of 15).",
        "checklist": [
          "APIs and MCP servers.",
          "- 25, a machine-readable contract (a public OpenAPI file or similar; for MCP, typed JSON Schema inputs on every tool).\n- 10, llms.txt or Markdown docs served for agents.\n- 0 to 20, descriptions that say what a tool is for, when to use it and when not to, read from the tool definitions in the source or the API reference.\n- 0 to 15, typed inputs with enums, constraints and required fields, and no free-form JSON blobs.\n- 0 to 15, examples and documented error responses.\n- 15, versioning and a public changelog.",
          "Models are read from the API reference, the OpenAPI file, llms.txt, the structured-output and tool-use docs and the model cards. Frameworks from docs a model can follow, typed interfaces, examples and the API reference."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-schema"
      },
      {
        "key": "payments",
        "name": "Payments \u0026 pricing",
        "score": 20,
        "maxGain": 10,
        "reason": "Read with the hosted rule. No x402, MPP or L402 (0). Credits are priced per lead by service, job value and demand, with no credit pack price published (0). Free for customers, and professionals see leads free (20). A person signs up on the website or in an app (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "The published rubric, also on the [x402 page](https://www.anchorterminal.com/x402/).",
          "- 40, a machine payment protocol (x402, MPP or L402) on the tool's own endpoints. 10 to 30 when it covers only some endpoints or only goes through a third party, and the note says which.\n- 20, per-call or per-unit pricing published without a login. 10 for public plan-only pricing, 0 for \"contact sales\" or prices behind a login.\n- 20, a free tier or trial that doesn't need a card.\n- 20, autonomous onboarding, meaning an agent can get access without a person signing up in a browser (keyless use, x402, a programmatic key API).",
          "Payment platforms and agent wallets rarely charge for their own API over a machine protocol, so the first line has steps for them, and the highest one that applies counts. 40 when x402, MPP or L402 runs on all their own endpoints, 30 when it runs on part of their own API, 25 when their merchants can accept one, 20 for running a facilitator, 15 for paying as a buyer, and 0 when the only protocol is their own. Merchant acceptance sits above a facilitator because the platform's own customers can charge agents through it, while a facilitator settles for sellers who wire up the protocol themselves. The counter-argument (a facilitator does more for the protocol as a whole) has a point. Each note says which step applied.",
          "Open-source software you run yourself is scored on its hosted or paid option if it has one. A free, self-hosted package with nothing to buy gets 20, 20 and 20 for the last three lines, and 0 to 40 for the first only if it ships a payment protocol."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-payments"
      },
      {
        "key": "transparency",
        "name": "Transparency \u0026 trust",
        "score": 49,
        "maxGain": 4.5,
        "reason": "Closed service under customer terms last updated 5 September 2025, naming Bark.com Global Limited with company number, office and VAT number (15). The privacy notice of 9 February 2026 names the controller, says data is kept no longer than necessary and then deleted or deidentified, describes transfers outside the EEA and processor categories, without retention periods (18 of 30). Changes are notified by updating the date, with no deprecation policy (0). Processors by category, with two add-on partners named (Synup Inc, Cyberstaff Limited) (5 of 20).",
        "blend": "editorial 38, provenance 59",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, source availability and licence clarity. 30 for open source under an OSI licence, 15 for closed with clear terms, 0 for unclear terms.\n- 0 to 30, data handling and retention statements that agree with each other (privacy policy, DPA, retention periods, subprocessors).\n- 0 to 20, a deprecation policy or notices with dates.\n- 0 to 20, telemetry disclosed with an opt-out (local software), or subprocessors and data locations disclosed (hosted).",
          "The other half of Transparency and trust is the provenance score, computed from checked facts (below). The category score is the mean of the two."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-transparency"
      },
      {
        "key": "maintenance",
        "name": "Maintenance \u0026 community",
        "score": 54,
        "maxGain": 4,
        "reason": "Read for a closed service. Customer app 1.78.1 on 13 October 2026 (30). Twelve versions from 30 June to 13 October (20). A help centre with a support contact article, no changelog (4 of 15). No MCP server or SDK (0). No package or CI to judge (0).",
        "checklist": [
          "- 0 to 30, time since the last release, or the last published model or API change for a closed service. 30 within 30 days, 20 within 90, 10 within 180, 0 older.\n- 20, at least three releases or dated changelog entries in the last 90 days.\n- 0 to 25, responsiveness. Issues and pull requests answered on GitHub (the open issues and how recent the replies are). For closed services, a public changelog and a support or community channel that answers, 0 to 15.\n- 15, presence in the official MCP registry under a verified namespace (MCP servers), or current official SDKs (APIs and models).\n- 10, package health, current dependencies and CI.",
          "Models are read for deprecation notice periods and model churn rather than release counts."
        ],
        "checklistUrl": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/#checklist-maintenance"
      }
    ],
    "provenance": [
      {
        "label": "Terms of service",
        "value": "read, states 6 of the 7 things a reader expects, and has 2 clauses that cost points",
        "points": 5.1,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Status page",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "Changelog",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      },
      {
        "label": "security.txt",
        "value": "not found",
        "points": 0,
        "max": 10
      }
    ],
    "unchecked": [
      "Credit pack prices and the credit cost of a typical lead.",
      "Who built and maintains the Bark app on Zapier, and how it authenticates.",
      "Whether Bark's privacy notice reference to users who reach Bark through APIs means a partner API exists."
    ],
    "weaknesses": [
      "No public API or MCP server an outside agent can call for a household",
      "No credit pack prices published, and a lead's credit cost depends on job value and demand",
      "The Zapier app's Purchase Bark action spends credits, with no documented confirmation step",
      "No status page, security.txt or developer documentation found"
    ],
    "agentNotes": [
      "Don't plan to call Bark for a household. Hand the request to the person on bark.com or the app",
      "For a professional's own leads, use the Bark app on Zapier, and ask before any Purchase Bark step, which spends credits",
      "Tell a professional that credits expire 3 months after purchase"
    ],
    "recheck": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/builders/#disputes"
  },
  "meta": {
    "attribution": "Anchor Terminal (https://www.anchorterminal.com)",
    "docs": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/docs/",
    "generatedAt": "2026-10-14",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "method": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/benchmark/",
    "methodology": "0.4",
    "openapi": "https://www.anchorterminal.com/openapi.json",
    "preview": false,
    "run": "2026-10-01",
    "runLabel": "October 2026 research run"
  }
}