Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

by com.mcpscores
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Idempotency claim

claim
Idempotent

Exactly-once guard for work that costs money or has side effects. The first call for a key returns granted:true and is FREE. Every later call for that key returns granted:false with first_claimed_at and, if complete() was called, the stored result — so a retrying agent gets the answer instead of paying for the same paid API call twice. $0.002 is charged the FIRST time a key is denied (and again only if complete() has since attached a new result); repeated denials of the same unchanged fact are free. If we cannot determine the state we return granted:null and you must NOT proceed. Costs $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base, and ONLY when granted === false, and this exact denial 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/claim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesYour idempotency key. Scoped to your namespace; hashed before storage. <=256 chars. Example: 'charge-order-8814'.
scopeNoOptional unit of work this belongs to. Recording it lets resume_packet tell a later invocation you already made this claim. Example: 'permit-review-2026-08'.
agent_keyNoYour agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.
ttl_secondsNoHow long the claim is remembered. Default 86400, max 2592000. Example: '86400'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_key / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "the agent_secret that register returned"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / key / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "charge-order-8814"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "permit-review-2026-08"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ttl_seconds / examples
      Added value: +[
+  86400
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark idempotentHint=true, and the description substantially expands on this with billing details, free first call, repeated-denial behavior, complete() interaction, granted:null failure semantics, authentication methods, and the equivalent HTTP route. There is no contradiction with the annotations; readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the tool's side-effectful and cost-bearing behavior.

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 long but densely packed. Core semantics and the critical safety rule are front-loaded, followed by billing and auth details. Some redundancy around the $0.002 billing condition exists, but every sentence contributes meaningful operational information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and behavior. It covers granted:true/false/null, first_claimed_at, stored results from complete(), billing conditions, authentication, and the HTTP route. For a tool with this complexity, the agent has enough to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context for agent_key (header fallback) and key (idempotency key), but it does not need to re-explain parameters. It neither detracts from nor significantly enriches the already well-documented schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific definition: 'Exactly-once guard for work that costs money or has side effects.' It then explains the unique granted:true/false/null semantics, making the tool's function distinct from sibling tools like barrier_status, checkpoint_put, or seen_add without ambiguity.

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?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: for costly or side-effectful work needing exactly-once protection. It also gives a strong safety rule: if granted:null, you must NOT proceed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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
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