Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

by com.mcpscores

Tell every worker on a job to stop

job_cancel
DestructiveIdempotent

There is otherwise NO WAY TO TELL FIVE RUNNING AGENTS TO STOP — they finish and bill you for work you no longer want. This sets a durable stop flag on the job. FREE and idempotent. work_take on a cancelled job hands out nothing (and charges nothing), and should_continue answers 'no'. We do not kill anything: workers cooperate by checking, which is the only honest thing a service outside your process can offer. 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/job/cancel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesThe job to cancel. This is the same identifier as a work queue's queue_id, so cancelling a queue stops its workers. Alias: queue_id. Example: 'permit-batch-2026-08'.
reasonNoOptional short reason, <=512 chars, returned to every worker that asks. Example: 'customer withdrew the request'.
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?

Beyond idempotent/destructive hints, description explains the cooperative stop mechanism (no kill), durability of flag, effect on work_take and should_continue, billing implications, and authentication methods. This is substantial context not available in 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?

Description is dense with useful info but slightly repetitive (FREE mentioned twice) and has a few long sentences. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes necessary caveats, so it earns a strong score.

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?

For a simple cancel tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, related tools, auth, and HTTP route. No gaps remain for invocation decisions.

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?

Schema covers all 3 params, but description adds semantics: job_id aliases queue_id, reason is returned to workers, and agent_key is an alternative to the Authorization header. This adds value beyond schema field descriptions.

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?

Title and description clearly state the tool cancels/stops a job by setting a durable stop flag, distinguishing it from individual task tools like work_fail or complete. The verb 'cancel' and resource 'job' are specific, and the description emphasizes its unique role among running agents.

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?

Provides clear context: use when you want to stop running agents, mentioning that there is no other way. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but references related behaviors of work_take and should_continue, giving enough 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