Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

by com.mcpscores

Read the raw checkpoint

checkpoint_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the last checkpoint verbatim — what was stored, with no briefing composed around it. Most callers want resume_packet instead, which folds in what arrived while you were gone and what we observed you doing. $0.002 ONLY when a checkpoint exists AND its version has changed since you last paid for it — re-reading an unchanged checkpoint is free. If there is none we say so and charge nothing. Costs $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base, and ONLY when found === true, and this exact checkpoint version has not been billed before; otherwise the same call returns the full answer and settles nothing. Authenticate with Authorization: Bearer , or pass agent_key as an argument if your host cannot set headers. Equivalent HTTP route: POST /v1/checkpoint/get.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYesThe unit of work. Alias: workflow_id. Example: 'permit-review-2026-08'.
agent_keyNoYour agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behind-the-scenes behavior beyond annotations: the billing model ($0.002 only when found and version changed), free re-reads, and behavior when no checkpoint exists. It also documents authentication requirements via header or agent_key argument. This complements the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but the billing details are repeated twice ('$0.002 ONLY when...' and 'Costs $0.002 USDC per call...') making it somewhat redundant. However, it remains organized and informative.

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 lacking an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the tool's purpose, its relationship to resume_packet, billing, authentication, and the equivalent HTTP route. This is more than sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and examples (100% coverage), so the description need not add much. The description does clarify that agent_key is an alternative to the Authorization header, which aligns with the schema. No additional parameter meaning is added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool fetches the last checkpoint verbatim, without a briefing, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes it from resume_packet by noting that most callers should use that alternative instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when not to use this tool: 'Most callers want resume_packet instead' and explains what resume_packet offers. It also implies usage for raw checkpoint retrieval, and optionally mentions authentication alternatives.

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

All MCPFax Agent Continuity toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a clearly distinct mechanism—barriers, budgets, checkpoints, claims, heartbeats, inboxes, leases, work queues, etc. Even closely related pairs like claim/complete, work_done/inbox_ack, and barrier_status/work_status are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is object_verb (e.g., checkpoint_get, work_push, seen_add, lease_release), which is consistent and readable. A few single-word verbs (claim, complete, send) and noun-only names (resume_packet, retry_state, whoami) break the pattern, but they are few and still intuitive.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the surface is well beyond the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' and will feel heavy for agents to explore, even though the tools are organized into subdomains. The scope is broad, but the sheer number makes the server less approachable and increases the chance of misselection.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides thorough lifecycle coverage across its domains: checkpoints get/put, work queue push/take/done/fail/status, inbox poll/ack/nack/schedule, lease acquire/renew/release, barrier create/signal/status, dedup add/check, watermark get/set, retry state, budget check/record, and idempotency claim/complete. There are no obvious dead ends or missing essential operations.

Resources