MCPFax Agent Continuity

Release a lease

lease_release

DestructiveIdempotent

Release a lease you hold so the next worker can take it immediately instead of waiting for the TTL. FREE. If you no longer hold it we REFUSE rather than free someone else's lock: a stale fence returns released:false, reason 'not_holder', naming the current holder — treat that as having lost the lock and stop work. An already-expired lease returns released:false, reason 'expired'. Neither is an error you can retry away; both mean the lock is not yours. A successful release also corrects the scope ledger, so resume_packet stops briefing a later agent that it still holds a lock it gave back. 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/lease/release.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	The leased key. Example: 'queue/orders'.
`fence`	Yes	The fence token from lease(). Required, and checked exactly: a stale one is refused, never honoured. Each acquisition's token is an independent draw, so the one you were given for an earlier generation of this key does not become the current one by adding to it. The example below is a shape, not a usable value. Example: '3170294857216913'.
`holder`	Yes	The holder id that owns the lease. Example: 'worker-3-6f2a91'.
`agent_key`	No	Your agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description discloses refusal reasons ('released:false, reason not_holder'), that it names the current holder, that failed releases are not retryable, and that successful release corrects the scope ledger. It also states the tool is free and explains authentication options, adding substantial behavioral context.

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 longer than the minimum, but every sentence adds value: purpose, failure modes, side effects, cost, and auth. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently packs necessary details, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing critical 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 having no output schema, the description covers the tool comprehensively: success behavior, failure reasons, treatment of stale/expired leases, side effects on the scope ledger, cost, authentication methods, and HTTP route. This is complete for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the fence semantics ('stale one is refused') and mentions agent_key as a fallback, but it does not add significant new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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: 'Release a lease you hold so the next worker can take it immediately instead of waiting for the TTL.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like lease (acquire) and lease_renew (extend) by focusing on the release action and its immediate effect.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (when you hold a lease and want to hand it off), and gives explicit guidance on what happens in stale/expired cases ('Neither is an error you can retry away'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like lease_renew for extending a lease, so it is not a full when/when-not comparison.

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?