Skip to main content
Glama

Burnes Atelier Operations Reconciliation

Server Details

Deterministic operations reconciliation for AI agents: COMPLETE, INCOMPLETE, or NEEDS_REVIEW.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Available Tools

1 tool
reconcile_operationsOperations Reconciliation EvidenceBInspect

Deterministic operational handoff reconciliation. Returns COMPLETE, INCOMPLETE, or NEEDS_REVIEW with missing requirements, normalized packet, and hash-bound proof. Paid execution: $5.00 USDC via x402 on Base.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectYes
evidenceNo
next_ownerNo
request_idNo
actions_takenNo
current_stateNo
completion_claimYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
decisionYes
disclaimerNo
request_idYes
requirementsYes
request_sha256Yes
response_sha256Yes
service_versionYes
normalized_packetYes
missing_requirementsYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses determinism, paid execution via x402 on Base, and the substantive output components. It does not discuss side effects, failure modes, or what happens if payment fails, but for a reconciliation/proof operation this is a reasonably transparent disclosure.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two dense sentences convey the operation, the verdict types, the output payload components, and the payment requirement. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. There is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Although an output schema exists, the tool has seven parameters with deeply nested objects, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no input guidance. The description covers the return contract and cost but leaves the input contract underspecified. An agent would likely struggle to construct a valid request without external examples or parameter documentation.

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%, and the description mentions no parameter names. It only implies that missing requirements are computed from the submitted handoff data. An agent cannot determine how to populate subject, evidence, actions_taken, next_owner, or completion_claim from the description alone. Property names and enums in the schema help somewhat, but the description adds very little parameter-level meaning.

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 that this is a deterministic operational handoff reconciliation returning COMPLETE, INCOMPLETE, or NEEDS_REVIEW with missing requirements, normalized packet, and hash-bound proof. The resource and function are clear even though the main verb is implied by 'reconciliation'. No sibling tools exist, so distinction is not needed.

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 provides context that this is for operational handoff reconciliation and warns that execution costs $5.00 USDC. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what prerequisites or alternatives exist. With no siblings, the absence of alternatives is acceptable, but the usage trigger remains implied rather than explicit.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedreconcile_operations

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to replace self-reported done checkboxes with verified, evidence-based completion tracking, using automated FAIL_TO_PASS/PASS_TO_PASS tests, mandatory mutation checking, and explicit human/AI reviews when automated proof is impossible.
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Provides durable mission state for AI agents, enabling crash-safe recovery, verified completion, and explicit reconciliation of uncertain side effects without duplicate or blind retries.
    Apache 2.0
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined by its name and description.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool uses a clear and conventional verb_noun pattern ('reconcile_operations'). With no other tools, there is no inconsistency in naming.

Tool Count4/5

The server contains just one tool, which is below the typical 3-15 range, but the domain is highly specific and narrow. The tool covers its intended operation fully, so the count is only slightly thin.

Completeness5/5

The reconciliation tool provides a complete lifecycle for its domain: it evaluates completeness, returns missing requirements, supplies a normalized packet, and produces a hash-bound proof. There are no apparent gaps or dead ends.

Resources