SuperCatch

Inspect one support operation

supercatch_get_support_operation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect one exact support operation from the original connection. Inspect a durable support receipt after a lost response before retrying the original intent. Keep its original plan and idempotency key. Does not read another connection's receipts, create a case, send a reply, approve a plan or retry an uncertain email attempt. Strict public receipts with separate local, in-app and email outcomes. Empty retained history is not proof that no effect occurred. Private routing, review evidence and original keys are excluded. Requires OAuth account:support:write consent. Requires separate account:support:write consent and the current account's original connection. Account read, support read, store membership and staff privileges do not substitute for ownership or native bound approval. Read-only; no notification or provider action. Requires current original support-write consent even though native receipt history can survive revocation. Changed grants, environment, action or cursor binding fail closed. An incomplete receipt remains explicitly uncertain; do not replace the original intent.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "account.support.create",
      "operation_id": "owned-operation-id"
    },
    "name": "supercatch_get_support_operation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	Original support operation action; create and reply receipts are distinct.
`operation_id`	Yes	Exact support operation receipt belonging to the current account and original connection.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, yet the description adds substantial extra behavior: consent requirements, fail-closed binding checks on grants/environment/action/cursor, exclusion of private routing and keys, and the warning that empty retained history is not proof of no effect. The auth sentences are redundant and self-repeating, which costs a point, but the substance is well beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is bloated and repetitious ('Requires OAuth account:support:write consent. Requires separate account:support:write consent'), and consent/ownership/privilege statements are restated across several sentences. Several clauses could be merged without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the complexity that matters for a receipt lookup: consent, binding checks, uncertainty of incomplete receipts, and retention limits. Only the routing to alternative tools for the no-receipt case is left implicit.

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 both action (enum) and operation_id documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that receipts are bound to the original connection and that create and reply receipts are distinct, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Inspect one exact support operation') and scopes it to the original connection, which separates it from list_support_operations and get_support_case. The negative list ('does not ... create a case, send a reply, approve a plan') further sharpens the boundary, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It states a concrete triggering situation: inspect a durable receipt after a lost response before retrying the original intent, and adds the caveat that an incomplete receipt stays uncertain and the original intent should not be replaced. What is missing is an explicit pointer to alternatives such as list_support_operations or get_operation_result when no receipt is known.

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

All SuperCatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?