Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

Resume the work, not the conversation

resume_packet
Read-onlyIdempotent

THE HEADLINE TOOL. Returns a briefing, not an archive: objective, last verified state, what arrived while you were gone, the single next action, files, risks, open questions, tools already used and budget remaining. Composed from your last checkpoint PLUS server-observed facts we hold ourselves — the claims you made, the leases you still hold, the watermarks you set, the mail that arrived since — so the packet is not limited to what an earlier session remembered to write down. Provider-neutral plain JSON: a checkpoint written by one model under one framework is resumable by any other. $0.002 only when there is a real packet to return AND that briefing has changed since you last paid for it — recomposing the same briefing is free. An empty scope tells you so and costs nothing. Costs $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base, and ONLY when the packet carries something — a checkpoint, new events since it, or server-observed facts — and this exact briefing 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/resume.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boxNoSub-mailbox to count new events from, default 'inbox'. Example: 'inbox'.
scopeYesThe unit of work to resume — a workflow, project or task id you choose. Namespace-scoped. Example: 'permit-review-2026-08'.
agent_keyNoYour agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.
max_eventsNoHow many new-event headers to include, 1..50. Default 25. Example: '25'.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses substantial behavioral traits: the conditional billing model ('$0.002 only when... briefing has changed... otherwise free'), the use of server-observed facts, authentication requirements (Authorization header or agent_key argument), and the HTTP route. This goes well beyond the structured metadata.

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 typical but well-structured, front-loaded with the core purpose ('THE HEADLINE TOOL') and then progressing through contents, composition, provider-neutrality, pricing, authentication, and endpoint. Every sentence carries information, but some details (pricing breakdown) could be condensed without losing meaning.

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 sufficiently documents what the response contains (briefing details, costs, empty scope behavior). It also covers critical operational aspects (billing, auth, server-side facts) that an agent needs to invoke and interpret results correctly. For the tool's complexity, the description is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for key parameters: it explains that an empty scope indicates no packet and costs nothing, and clarifies that agent_key is an alternative when headers cannot be set by the host. This enriches the schema descriptions without repeating them.

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 function: 'Returns a briefing, not an archive' and lists the specific contents (objective, last verified state, new events, next action, files, risks, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it combines last checkpoint with server-observed facts, making it unique among tools like checkpoint_get or inbox_poll.

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 implies when to use it ('THE HEADLINE TOOL', 'Returns a briefing...') and clarifies it is more comprehensive than a raw checkpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for simpler needs (e.g., checkpoint_get for just the raw checkpoint). Clear context but no explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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