Webanto

Find operation by retry key

webanto_list_operations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve at most one saved operation by exact action and original idempotency_key after a lost response. For backlinks.submit, preparation, handoff and client-receipt keys all resolve the retained attempt; backlinks.verify resolves a separate observation. No costs, mutation or broad history search. Originating API key and current domain read access are required. Empty means no retained receipt was found, never permission to repeat an uncertain external effect. Follow with webanto_get_operation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "webanto_list_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	Action whose saved receipt to recover.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Original logical request key, unchanged across retries.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: auth requirements (originating API key plus current domain read access), the meaning of an empty result, and per-action resolution semantics (backlinks.submit vs backlinks.verify).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly written, with no filler sentences. It is dense to the point of being packed, but each clause (scope, per-action behavior, auth, empty semantics, follow-up) carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given a two-parameter read tool, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: prerequisites, empty-result interpretation, per-action resolution, and the next call to make.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the action must match exactly, the key must be the original logical key unchanged across retries, and key resolution differs by action family. That is substantive semantic guidance beyond the field 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve at most one saved operation by exact action and original idempotency_key') plus the triggering condition ('after a lost response'). This clearly separates it from siblings like webanto_get_operation and webanto_get_operation_result, which take an operation id rather than a retry key.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage: recovery after a lost response, no costs/mutation/broad history search, and a named follow-up ('Follow with webanto_get_operation'). It also warns that an empty result is not permission to repeat an uncertain external effect, which is a genuine when-not rule.

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

All Webanto 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?