Ausca

Admit or replay one Agent Inbox Extension invocation

ausca_extend_inbox

DestructiveIdempotent

Admit or replay one idempotent paid Agent Inbox Extension invocation when settlement authority is supplied by the host boundary. Only envelopes for the inbox.extend offer are admitted on this resource. Extension adds a supported increment to the observed current expiry, preserves the address and contents, requires an active inbox, and may not move prepaid expiry more than 30 days ahead.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes
`offer_id`	Yes
`offer_revision`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes
`input_schema_digest`	Yes
`output_schema_digest`	Yes
`offer_revision_digest`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedOct 25, 2026

removedOutput schema / $defs / ArtifactEvidence / properties / artifact_ref
```
Removed value: -{
-  "$ref": "#/$defs/ArtifactRef"
-}
```
addedOutput schema / $defs / ArtifactEvidence / properties / artifact_uri
```
Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/$defs/ArtifactUri"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / $defs / ArtifactEvidence / required

Previous value: -[
-  "artifact_ref",
-  "content_digest",
-  "media_type",
-  "size_bytes",
-  "created_at"
-]New value: +[
+  "artifact_uri",
+  "content_digest",
+  "media_type",
+  "size_bytes",
+  "created_at"
+]

removedOutput schema / $defs / ArtifactRef

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Opaque artifact reference minted by artifact commitment. Relay it unchanged; its form is not part of the contract.",
-  "maxLength": 512,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / $defs / ArtifactUri

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Opaque artifact reference minted by artifact commitment. Relay it unchanged; its form is not part of the contract.",
+  "maxLength": 512,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / $defs / X402PaymentRequired / properties / accepts / items / title
```
Added value: +"X402PaymentRequirements"
```
addedOutput schema / $defs / X402PaymentRequired / properties / resource / title
```
Added value: +"X402ResourceInfo"
```
addedOutput schema / $defs / X402PaymentRequired / title
```
Added value: +"X402PaymentRequired"
```

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 16, 2026

removedInput schema / $defs / ParentBinding

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "execution_digest": {
-      "$ref": "#/$defs/Digest"
-    },
-    "invocation_id": {
-      "$ref": "#/$defs/Identifier"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "invocation_id",
-    "execution_digest"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / attribution

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "properties": {
-    "campaign": {
-      "maxLength": 128,
-      "pattern": "^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._-]{0,127}$",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "source": {
-      "maxLength": 64,
-      "pattern": "^[a-z0-9][a-z0-9._-]{0,63}$",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "source"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / parent_binding

Removed value: -{
-  "$ref": "#/$defs/ParentBinding"
-}

AddedSep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful business behavior: replay semantics, host-supplied settlement authority, active inbox requirement, preservation of address and contents, and the 30-day prepaid expiry ceiling. It does not detail failure modes or return behavior, but it adds substantial context beyond structured fields.

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 dense but front-loaded: it leads with the action, then scope, then constraints. Every clause earns its place, though the jargon-heavy phrasing could be tightened for readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a complex seven-parameter mutation with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves parameter meaning and error/authorization details incomplete.

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 0% across seven required parameters, and the description does not explain offer_id, offer_revision, digests, input, or idempotency_key. It gestures at the offer envelope and idempotency concept but leaves essentially every parameter undocumented, which is a major gap for a seven-parameter mutation tool.

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 states a specific verb pair ("Admit or replay") and a specific resource ("Agent Inbox Extension invocation"), and it scopes the resource to inbox.extend offer envelopes. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like ausca_prepare_invocation, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 gives a usage condition ("when settlement authority is supplied by the host boundary") and an exclusion ("Only envelopes for the inbox.extend offer are admitted on this resource"), but it never names the sibling tool to use for other offers or explains when not to call this one. Usage is implied rather than fully routed.

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

All Ausca 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.