Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

by com.mcpscores
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_key / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "the agent_secret that register returned"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / box / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "inbox"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_events / examples
      Added value: +[
+  25
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / examples
      Added value: +[
+  "permit-review-2026-08"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses payment semantics, cost conditions, empty-scope behavior, authentication methods, and the equivalent HTTP route. It also clarifies idempotent-like behavior by stating that recomposing the same briefing is free, which adds real context beyond the 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 front-loaded with the core value proposition and return contents, followed by important operational details. It is somewhat long and repeats the billing condition in two places, but each detail about cost, auth, and response format earns its place for a paid tool.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by listing the briefing fields, data sources, response format, cost, auth, and empty-scope behavior. An agent has enough guidance to invoke it correctly and interpret the result, even without a formal output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description adds some context about scope and empty scope behavior, but it does not substantially extend the meaning of the parameters beyond what the input schema provides.

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 names a clear verb and deliverable: it returns a briefing, not an archive, and enumerates its contents. It also distinguishes itself from a raw checkpoint and from a conversation resume, making its role as the headline resumptool unambiguous.

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 positions itself as 'THE HEADLINE TOOL' for resuming work and explains that it combines checkpoint data with server-observed facts, implicitly distinguishing it from checkpoint_get. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, falling just short of direct routing 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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources