Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Retasc

by com.retasc
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a claim

check_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

Does THIS session hold an issue? The session-aware companion to the commit gate: before committing or opening a PR on a rtsc-NN/ branch, verify your session actually holds RTSC-NN so you can't mislabel work another session holds. Returns {youHold, status, expiresAt, lastRenewedAt, heldBy}: status is held | unclaimed | expired | other_session | unknown_session; heldBy names the real holder (principal/runtime/session) when it's not you. lastRenewedAt is when the lease was last renewed (by you or by a watchdog proxy on your behalf) and expiresAt is always exactly one lease after it (30 minutes behind the retasc mcp-proxy, 2 hours for a claim made with no proxy) — call this twice across a long stretch and a lastRenewedAt that moved is proof something is renewing you; one frozen at claim time means nothing is, and the issue will be reclaimed mid-work. renewedByYourCalls answers the same question directly for a no-proxy session: true means your own calls to Retasc are renewing THIS claim, so you need no separate heartbeat while you keep working. It goes false after a reconnect (a new session id means the claim still names your old session), so re-claim with your claimToken to move it across. It is null where your calls cannot renew anything (behind the retasc proxy, or with no session id): read lastRenewedAt there. Whether to re-claim is reclaimWouldMove: true means claim_issue with your claimToken would move this lease onto you, false means it would change nothing. Re-claim only on true. This call is the one tool that never renews anything, so it can't fake either answer. A status of other_session is NOT always someone else: if you were restarted or /resume'd, your client may have started a NEW session and the holder named in heldBy is your own former one. You still have that lease's claim_token — pass it to claim_issue to move the lease onto this session, then carry on. Read-only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYese.g. RTSC-49

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses lease renewal semantics, proxy vs no-proxy behavior, reconnection effects, status meanings, and the guarantee that this call never renews anything. That is substantial behavioral context an agent needs before trusting the result.

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 core purpose and commit-gate warning are front-loaded, and most detail earns its place because there is no output schema and the lease semantics are complex. It is still very dense and could be more structured, but it is not repetitive filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the returned fields, statuses, `heldBy`, renewal timestamps, `renewedByYourCalls`, and `reclaimWouldMove`. It is complete enough for an agent to interpret and act on the response.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `identifier`. The description adds surrounding lease context but does not add much specific meaning about the `identifier` parameter itself, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 check with a clear resource: whether THIS session holds an issue/RTSC lease. It distinguishes itself from claim_issue and heartbeat by explaining that it is read-only, never renews anything, and reports the holder rather than changing it.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before committing or opening a PR on an `rtsc-NN/` branch, verify the session holds RTSC-NN. It also says when to re-claim via `claim_issue`, when not to, and how to interpret `renewedByYourCalls` versus using `heartbeat`.

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

All Retasc toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources