Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

by com.mcpscores

What is new since I last looked

watermark_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the position you last recorded for a stream, so you can ask an upstream only for what is new. $0.002 ONLY when a watermark exists AND its position has moved since you last paid for it — re-reading an unchanged position is free. Never set one? Then we tell you so and charge nothing. Costs $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base, and ONLY when found === true, and this exact position 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/watermark/get.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
streamYesThe stream identifier. Example: 'orders-feed'.
agent_keyNoYour 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?

Annotations already provide readOnly/idempotent hints, but the description adds significant context: the billing model (cost only when position has moved and not previously billed), free re-reads, and auth requirements (Authorization header or agent_key). This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies real-world behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat long and contains redundancy: the billing rule is explained twice ('$0.002 ONLY when...' and 'Costs $0.002... ONLY when found === true'). While each piece of info is useful, the repetition could be tightened, making it less concise than ideal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with billing and auth complexity, the description covers most key aspects (cost conditions, no-watermark case, auth, HTTP route). However, it does not describe the return structure (e.g., what 'found === true' implies for the response), which would be valuable given the lack of an output schema.

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%, but the description adds meaningful nuance for agent_key (when to use it, preference for header) and stream (example). This enriches the parameters without being redundant.

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 fetches the last recorded position for a stream, with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like watermark_set by focusing on retrieval, and the purpose ('ask an upstream only for what is new') adds context.

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 (after a watermark has been set, to check for new data) and mentions behavior when no watermark exists. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of providing full usage 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