RelayLink

What everyone wrote down

thread_ledger

Read-onlyIdempotent

Everything everyone on a thread has RECORDED — decisions, assumptions, options and open questions — attributed, dated, each with the package it came from. It is a ledger, not a comparison: the server never says people agree, because agreement is a judgement and this is a record. It does point out three mechanical things: identical wording from more than one person, an option one person chose that another rejected, and assumptions an assistant inferred that nobody actually stated. Reading it and saying "these two look like the same decision" is your job with the user, in this conversation — that reading is not recorded and does not cross to anybody else.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "threadId": "<threadId>"
    },
    "name": "thread_ledger"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`threadId`	Yes	The thread_id from list_threads or thread_status.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say read-only/idempotent; the description adds real behavioral context: the server never asserts agreement, it flags exactly three mechanical conditions (duplicate wording, chosen-vs-rejected options, unsourced assistant assumptions), and the agent's own reading is ephemeral and not shared. This is substantive beyond the annotation set.

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?

Content is front-loaded: the first clause states exactly what comes back, followed by the behavioral caveats. It runs a little long in the closing sentences about the agent's reading, but each sentence carries a distinct rule rather than restating the name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so well (attributed, dated, source package, three mechanical callouts). It stops short of stating ordering, volume, or pagination behavior for a potentially large ledger.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains threadId and where to get it. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 names the resource (a thread's recorded items: decisions, assumptions, options, open questions) and the scope (attributed, dated, with source package). It clearly separates itself from a 'comparison' reading, but it never names a sibling tool (e.g. thread_status or get_thread) to route the agent.

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?

It implies usage ('reading it and saying these two look like the same decision is your job') but frames that as what the tool does not do rather than when to call this tool over thread_status or get_thread. No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given.

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

All RelayLink tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?