Sliq

Report enactment blocked

report_enactment_blocked

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "prospect_id": "<prospect_id>",
      "node_id": "<node_id>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "report_enactment_blocked"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	Yes	Short machine-friendly cause, e.g. 'linkedin_disconnected', 'unreachable_profile', 'no_valid_recipient'.
`node_id`	Yes	The flow node whose step could not be performed — must be the node the prospect currently rests on.
`agent_id`	Yes	ID of the agent whose flow the prospect is on.
`prospect_id`	Yes	The prospect's `id` — the outreach_prospects primary key, as returned on every query_prospects row and carried on flow on_enter events (event['prospect_ids']).
`on_behalf_of`	No	A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description

Previous value: -"An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."New value: +"A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 21, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / reason / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ID of the agent whose flow the prospect is on.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / task_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "ID of the task whose flow the prospect is on.",
-  "type": "integer"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "task_id",
-  "prospect_id",
-  "node_id",
-  "reason"
-]New value: +[
+  "agent_id",
+  "prospect_id",
+  "node_id",
+  "reason"
+]

First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond by disclosing exactly what state is written (the prospect is marked blocked on its current node), the effect (flow will not re-dispatch that step), and the clearing condition (any later move to another node removes the block). That side-effect and reversibility detail is exactly what an agent needs before mutating flow state.

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 summary is front-loaded with the core condition and then the consequence, with no filler sentences; each clause carries information. It is somewhat verbose for a single-purpose reporting tool, and the summary/returns wrapper is boilerplate, but the content density is high.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description includes a returns note confirming it echoes prospect, node, and reason, and it fully covers the mutation's scope and lifecycle. For a four-required-parameter reporting tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to predict the result.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented including the reason examples and the node_id constraint, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the node semantics but adds no new syntax, format, or validation detail, and it never mentions the optional on_behalf_of parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report that a flow step could not be performed for a prospect') and enumerates the concrete triggers (LinkedIn disconnected, unreachable profile, no valid recipient). It clearly describes the resulting state change, but never names the inverse sibling retry_blocked_enactment, so the reader must infer which of the two blocked-related tools handles recovery.

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?

Gives an explicit call condition ('for every prospect you cannot enqueue or route during a flow step — never silently skip one') plus a useful discriminator against transient failures ('retrying identically would fail identically'). It stops short of naming the alternative tool (retry_blocked_enactment) or stating when not to report, so routing guidance is strong but not complete.

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

All Sliq 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?