Skip to main content
Glama

ratchet

by com.ratchetgate

Find real-world actions that bypassed the gate

ratchet_reconcile
Read-onlyIdempotent

Given the idempotency keys for actions a vendor says actually happened, returns which ones went through Ratchet and which it has never seen. The unseen ones are code paths that acted WITHOUT asking, so a retry there can act twice — a bug the operator almost certainly does not know about. Send references only; never send credentials.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysYesIdempotency keys your system should have used for those actions.
effect_typeYes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuine value by explaining that unseen keys indicate a likely double-action bug and by warning to never send credentials. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence. The security note earns its place, though the editorial phrase about the operator's awareness is not strictly necessary.

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

Completeness2/5

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

A required parameter, effect_type, is unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call. There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return shape, leaving meaningful ambiguity for a reconciliation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: keys has a description, but effect_type is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description contextualizes keys but gives no hint about valid effect_type values, despite effect_type being required.

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 states a specific operation: compare vendor-reported idempotency keys against Ratchet's records and return which keys were seen versus unseen. It clearly distinguishes the tool's reconciliation purpose from sibling tools like ratchet_list_effects or ratchet_effect_receipts.

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 establishes the right context: use this when a vendor claims actions happened and you want to detect actions that bypassed Ratchet. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use case is clear.

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

All ratchet 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to clearly distinct lifecycle phases (begin/report/resolve/heartbeat) and are strongly described, but recall, group_status, and list_effects all deal with looking up past effect or workflow state and could be confused when resuming work. The use-case guidance in the descriptions mostly disambiguates them, so this is a minor rather than systemic issue.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the ratchet_ prefix and snake_case, which gives a strong predictable family feel. However, some names follow verb_noun (begin_effect, resolve_effect) while others are noun phrases (effect_receipts, group_status, prevented_loss), so the pattern is consistent in style but not in grammatical form.

Tool Count5/5

Fifteen tools is at the upper end of the ideal range, but the domain is broad enough to justify every entry: effect lifecycle, lease maintenance, state inspection, circuit breakers, policies, receipts, reconciliation, rollback, and usage. Each tool fills a distinct role with no obvious redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full idempotency and safety lifecycle: authorize, execute, report, heartbeat, recover from indeterminate outcomes, verify with receipts, reconcile vendor truth, roll back multi-step work, and monitor budgets and policies. There are no dead ends or missing operations that would strand an agent in this domain.

Resources