MCPFax Agent Continuity

Your address and mailbox counts

whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Report this namespace's public address, registration time, and mailbox counts: how many items exist, how many are due right now, when the next one falls due, and how many are dead-lettered. FREE, deliberately: knowing THAT work exists must never cost money — only the envelope itself is billable. Poll this for free, then pay only when there is something to collect. 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/whoami.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_key`	No	Your agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: the tool is intentionally free and never charges, and it requires authentication via a header or agent_key. This helps the agent understand cost and auth implications.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but the emphasis on 'FREE' is repeated four times across multiple sentences, which is redundant. The auth and HTTP route information is useful, but the cost messaging could be condensed without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively enumerates the response contents: public address, registration time, mailbox counts, due now, next due, and dead-lettered counts. It also covers authentication and cost behavior, making it sufficiently complete for a simple read-only status tool.

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% with a single optional parameter (agent_key). The description's mention of agent_key as an authentication alternative mirrors the schema, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('this namespace's public address, registration time, and mailbox counts'), and enumerates the exact details returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inbox_poll or work_take, which are action-oriented.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Poll this for free, then pay only when there is something to collect.' This implies when this tool should be used (free status checking) and clarifies there is no cost. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough.

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?