Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

by com.mcpscores

Remember items you processed

seen_add
Idempotent

Record items you have already processed. FREE. Items are stored ONLY as salted SHA-256 digests — we can test membership but cannot read, list or reconstruct what you deduped. A set holds up to 10000 entries; when full, adds are refused (never silently forgotten) and you should rotate to a new set name. 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/seen/add.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
setYesSet name. Namespace-scoped, hashed before storage. Example: 'processed-ids'.
itemsYesUp to 100 strings per call, each <=1024 chars. Example: '["id-1","id-2"]'.
scopeNoOptional unit of work, so resume_packet can report which sets you are deduping against. Example: 'permit-review-2026-08'.
agent_keyNoYour agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.
ttl_secondsNoSliding set lifetime, refreshed on each add. Default 2592000 (30d), max 31536000. Example: '2592000'.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description substantially exceeds annotations by disclosing that items are stored ONLY as salted SHA-256 digests, cannot be read/listed/reconstructed, sets max at 10,000 entries with refusal on overflow, and that the tool is FREE and requires authentication. These are key behavioral traits not present 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, but 'FREE' is repeated twice and the HTTP route is appended, adding minor redundancy. Overall it remains concise and readable.

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 write-only dedup tool, the description covers purpose, privacy, set limits, failure behavior, authentication, and cost. While no output schema exists and return values are not explicitly described, this is not critical for an add operation; the description is thorough and enables correct selection and invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: set capacity of 10,000 entries and refusal when full, plus the privacy guarantee for items. It complements the schema's parameter descriptions without duplicating 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 opens with 'Record items you have already processed,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like seen_check by focusing on adding/recording rather than checking, and clarifies storage as salted SHA-256 digests.

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: to record processed items, and provides explicit guidance on set rotation when full ('adds are refused... you should rotate to a new set name'). It does not explicitly name alternatives like seen_check, but the context implies the complement, and authentication instructions are given.

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