Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

by com.mcpscores

Give a work item back, or fail it for good

work_fail
DestructiveIdempotent

Report that an item did not work out. FREE. THIS IS ALSO THE CORRECT WAY TO HAND AN ITEM BACK WHEN NOTHING WENT WRONG — there is no work_release; retry:true (the default) returns it immediately for another worker instead of waiting out the lease. When its attempts are exhausted it is DEAD-LETTERED and SURFACED in work_status, never silently dropped. With retry:false it is marked permanently failed, stops consuming attempts, and CANNOT BE UNDONE. PASS fence: exactly like work_done, if your lease already expired and the item went back to the queue we REFUSE with lease_lost, a stale fence is refused as not_holder, and a fence-less call on an item that has been handed out more than once is refused as fence_required — because accepting it would let a revived worker dead-letter an item another worker is processing right now. 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/work/fail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoOptional short reason, <=512 chars, surfaced on the dead letter so a human can see WHY it exhausted. Example: 'upstream 503'.
fenceNoThe fence token from work_take, for THIS item. Checked exactly when supplied; when omitted we accept the call only while the item has been handed out exactly once, and otherwise refuse with fence_required. Every item on a queue draws its own token independently, so the fence you hold for one item is not one step away from the fence another worker holds for another. The example below is a shape, not a usable value. Example: '3170294857216913'.
retryNoPut it back for another attempt (default true), or fail it permanently (false). Example: 'true'.
item_idYesThe item you were given. Example: 'P-1'.
queue_idYesThe queue. Alias: job_id. Example: 'permit-batch-2026-08'.
agent_keyNoYour agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:true), the description details critical behaviors: attempts exhaustion leads to dead-lettering and surfacing in work_status, never silently dropped; retry:false cannot be undone; and fence validation failures (lease_lost, not_holder, fence_required) with the safety rationale. It also discloses the tool is free, requires auth, and has an HTTP route, adding depth beyond 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the main purpose and the surprising hand-back use case. However, it contains redundancy—'FREE' appears twice, and 'this tool never charges' repeats the point—and the fence explanation is lengthy, though necessary. Overall it is reasonably structured but not perfectly concise.

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 covers the full behavioral spectrum: success and failure modes, dead-lettering, fence edge cases, error codes, authentication, and the HTTP equivalent. This is a complex tool, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description enhances retry semantics (immediate return instead of waiting out the lease) and fence semantics (failure codes and the rationale for refusing stale/fenceless calls), though other parameters rely on their schema descriptions.

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 role as reporting a work item that did not work out, but also reveals it is the correct way to hand back an item when nothing went wrong, explicitly noting there is no work_release. It distinguishes from siblings by referencing work_done and work_status, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use retry:true to immediately return an item for another worker (since there is no work_release), and retry:false to permanently fail it. It also warns about fence behavior matching work_done, giving a clear alternative for successful completion.

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