Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

by com.mcpscores

Attach a result to a claim

complete
Idempotent

Attach the outcome to an idempotency CLAIM you hold — NOT for finishing a mailbox task (use inbox_ack) or a queue item (use work_done). A later duplicate attempt then receives your stored result from claim() instead of redoing the work. FREE — this is a write, and we never bill for storing. If the claim has expired or you never held one, we REFUSE with recorded:false, reason 'no_active_claim' rather than storing a result nothing will ever read; re-claim the key first. The result is an opaque blob: we never parse, index or log it. FREE — this tool never charges. Authenticate with Authorization: Bearer , or pass agent_key as an argument if your host cannot set headers. Equivalent HTTP route: POST /v1/complete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesThe same key you claimed. Example: 'charge-order-8814'.
resultYesOpaque result blob, <=32768 bytes serialized. Example: '{"tx":"0x.."}'.
statusNoOptional: 'ok' or 'failed'. Default 'ok'. Recorded verbatim, not interpreted. Example: 'ok'.
agent_keyNoYour agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true), the description discloses that this is a write operation, never billed, and how failures are handled (recorded:false, reason 'no_active_claim'). It also states the result is an opaque blob never parsed/indexed/logged, and explains authentication methods. No contradiction with 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 well-structured with purpose first, then exclusions, idempotency behavior, failure semantics, and auth. It is slightly redundant by mentioning 'FREE' twice and could be tightened, but every sentence otherwise carries essential 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the failure mode (recorded:false with reason), the idempotency guarantee, the opaque result handling, and authentication options. It covers all relevant operational aspects an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds valuable context about key reuse ('same key you claimed'), the opaque nature of the result, and clarifies status defaults not fully explicit in the schema. This goes beyond the schema, so a small uplift from baseline is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Attach the outcome to an idempotency CLAIM') and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming inbox_ack and work_done as alternatives for other task types. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool (when you hold an idempotency claim) and when NOT to use it, pointing to alternatives. It also covers edge cases like expired claims and re-claiming, providing clear decision-making guidance.

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