MCPFax Agent Continuity

Leave a note for your future self

inbox_schedule

Leave work for your own next invocation — the same as send() addressed to yourself. FREE. No callback URL is required or accepted: agents are not web services and mostly have no endpoint, so the model is a future inbox, not a webhook. Whenever your next invocation starts, inbox_poll finds this waiting. 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/inbox/schedule.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`box`	No	Sub-mailbox name, default 'inbox'. Example: 'inbox'.
`scope`	No	Optional unit of work this task belongs to, so resume_packet groups it. Example: 'permit-review-2026-08'.
`due_at`	No	ISO-8601 due time. Example: '2026-08-13T09:00:00Z'.
`context`	No	Opaque payload. Never parsed or logged. Example: '{"permit_id":"P-1"}'.
`history`	No	Prior reasoning or tool output. Example: '[]'.
`priority`	No	0 (highest) to 9. Default 5. Among DUE items, delivery order is priority first, then oldest due time. Example: '5'.
`agent_key`	No	Your agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.
`objective`	Yes	What future-you should achieve, <=2048 chars. Example: 'Re-check the permit status'.
`dedupe_key`	No	Optional duplicate suppression key. Example: 'permit-P-1'.
`in_seconds`	No	Alternative to due_at: seconds from now. Example: '3600'.
`attachments`	No	Opaque refs or blobs. Example: '[]'.
`repeat_count`	No	Further occurrences to queue. Default 0, max 1000. Example: '7'.
`every_seconds`	No	Optional repeat interval (>=60). Example: '86400'.
`max_deliveries`	No	Attempts before dead-lettering. Default 5, max 50. Example: '5'.
`provider_extras`	No	Vendor/framework-specific state. Carried verbatim, never interpreted. Example: '{}'.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only indicate non-readonly and non-idempotent behavior, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds valuable context: the tool is FREE, requires authentication via Authorization header or agent_key, and maps to an HTTP route. It also clarifies that agents are not web services and that the message becomes available to inbox_poll on the next invocation.

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: it opens with the core purpose, then clarifies delivery semantics, pricing, authentication, and the HTTP equivalent. The main redundancy is the repeated 'FREE' emphasis, but overall every sentence earns its place without bloating.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, relationship to send and inbox_poll, authentication methods, and how the message will be received. It does not detail return values or complex parameter interactions, but those are largely self-documented in the schema.

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?

All 15 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by mentioning agent_key as an auth alternative and objective as the task content, but does not deeply elaborate on parameter semantics beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Leave work for your own next invocation' — a specific verb (leave/schedule) and resource (future inbox). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is 'the same as send() addressed to yourself' and that inbox_poll will retrieve the scheduled item.

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 gives clear context for when to use: to leave work for your own future invocation, and names send() as the comparable alternative. It also clarifies that no callback URL is required or accepted, implying webhook usage is not appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?