Skip to main content
Glama

MCPFax Agent Continuity

How far along is the fan-out

work_status
Idempotent

Turn a fan-out from a black box into something you can act on: how many items are pending, leased, done, failed and dead-lettered, the results collected so far, and every dead letter with the error that exhausted it. THIS IS WHAT LETS A PARENT PROCEED WITH 4 OF 5 instead of blocking on a straggler. Counts are produced by scanning the queue, not from counters that can drift. $0.002 ONLY when there is real progress — at least one completion, failure or dead letter — and only when the answer has changed since you last paid for it. An untouched queue charges nothing and says so. The counts are exact and never paged; the results and dead-letter ARRAYS are windowed at 50 rows each and hand you a page token when there is more, so every dead-lettered item is genuinely reachable rather than merely flagged as missing. Paging is free — you are charged per distinct progress state, not per page. Costs $0.002 USDC per call via x402 on Base, and ONLY when done + failed + dead_lettered >= 1, and this exact progress state 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/work/status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
dead_page_tokenNoOptional: the `next_dead_page_token` from a previous call, to read the next page of dead letters. Opaque — hand it back exactly as given. Omit for the first page. Example: 'x:item-0051'.
results_page_tokenNoOptional: the `next_results_page_token` from a previous call, to read the next page of results. Opaque — hand it back exactly as given. Omit for the first page. Example: 'c:00001754932100000:item-0051'.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond annotations: billing occurs only when there is real progress and the state changed, counts are exact (scanned, not drifted), arrays are windowed at 50 rows with page tokens, paging is free, and authentication methods. This is far more than the idempotentHint/readOnlyHint annotations provide, with no contradictions.

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 dense but every sentence adds unique value: purpose, use case, counting method, cost model, pagination, and auth. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details. While long, the all-caps emphasis and multiple clauses make it slightly harder to scan, but it remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does: counts, collected results, dead letters with errors, and page tokens. It also covers cost, idempotency, auth, and the equivalent HTTP route. For a tool with billing and pagination nuances, this is comprehensive and leaves no essential behavior unexplained.

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%, so the description does not need to define basic parameters. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that page tokens enable access to windowed arrays, that paging is free, and how agent_key relates to the Authorization header. This contextualizes the parameters' purpose and usage.

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 function: turning a fan-out from a black box into something actionable by reporting counts (pending, leased, done, failed, dead-lettered), results, and dead letters. It uses a specific verb ('turn... into') and resource (fan-out progress), and the use case (proceeding with 4 of 5) differentiates it from generic status tools.

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 explicitly identifies when to use this tool: when a parent needs to decide whether to proceed with partial completions instead of blocking on a straggler. It provides context for use but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, relying on the clear scenario to imply usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

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