Skip to main content
Glama

Coordination escalation check

wever_coordination-escalation-check
Read-only

Agent Coordination: submit how a group of agents handles a disagreement or a stall, as its escalation path, its past escalations, or both: where the path is written (a runbook, the work plan, configuration, only inside an agent prompt, or nowhere), who receives an escalation by name and whether that is the principal, a lead, an operator or other, whether it covers disagreements, stalls or both, what starts it (a time limit, a number of attempts, a threshold, an agent’s judgment or nothing) with its value, and whether escalations are recorded; and each past escalation with its reason, who raised it and when, who it went to, when it was resolved, how it ended (decided, withdrawn, timed out or unresolved) and the decision recorded. The signed report gives the path, every escalation and the outcomes counted, and names an escalation that is missing: a path written nowhere, a path that exists only in a prompt with no named recipient, and a written path with no recipient; then a prompt-only path, no trigger, a judgment trigger, a limit with no value, disagreements or stalls left out, escalations unrecorded, past escalations ending with no decision and escalations sent to the wrong recipient, with the fix for each. An incident escalation policy is wever_escalation-threshold-check and where a refused or silent handed-off task goes is wever_handoff-failure-check. Verdict escalation_missing, escalation_gaps, escalation_unverified or escalation_named. POST /api/coordination-escalation-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-coordination-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-coordination/.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "wever_coordination-escalation-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
escalationsNoEach past escalation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false annotations, the description discloses the cost model (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the auth requirement (X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route), and the returned Ed25519 signed receipt. It also enumerates the absence of side effects (no fetch, money movement, message, sharing, config change or external write), which is more specific than the bare annotation.

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 opening sentence is a single sprawling enumeration that restates nearly every schema property, and much of it duplicates what the input schema already declares. Operational facts an agent needs first — read-only, paid, signed receipt, verdicts — appear only after that wall of text, so the structure is back-loaded rather than front-loaded.

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?

For a nested, no-output-schema tool this is unusually complete: it describes the inputs, the report contents (path, every escalation, outcome counts, the named missing escalation, and the fix for each), the four possible verdicts, the payment and proof requirements, and the contract/human-page references. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 67%, and the description compensates by explaining the fields that the schema leaves bare — particularly the escalations array items (raised_by, raised_at, sent_to, resolved_at, outcome, decision) and the meaning of the path components in plain language. It does not add format hints (e.g., timestamp conventions for raised_at/resolved_at) beyond what the schema provides.

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 description states a concrete verb and resource — submit an agent group's escalation path and past escalations and receive a signed report — and names two siblings (wever_escalation-threshold-check for incident policy, wever_handoff-failure-check for refused or silent handoffs) that cover adjacent cases. It is clear what the tool does, but the purpose statement is buried inside a long field enumeration rather than stated up front.

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 explicitly routes the agent away from two overlapping siblings by stating what each of those covers, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions in the other direction (e.g., when an escalation problem belongs to coordination-boundary-check or coordination-conflict-check instead), leaving some sibling selection to inference.

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.

Resources