Skip to main content
Glama

Duplicate effect check

wever_duplicate-effect-check
Read-only

Agent Recovery: submit a resume and retry flow: each effect a resumed or retried task can repeat (a message, an order, a record, a booking or something else) with how a repeat is stopped or caught (an idempotency key the receiver honors, a check for the effect before repeating it, a cleanup that removes repeats afterward, or nothing), what one idempotency key covers (the effect, the task or each attempt), whether the flow looks for the effect after a resume or retry and whether the receiver drops repeats on its own, plus optionally the recovered runs with how many times each effect happened. The signed report says effect by effect whether duplicated effects are checked for after recovery, and names every effect nothing guards, every idempotency key issued per attempt and every effect seen happening more often than expected (messages sent twice, orders placed twice, records created twice, bookings doubled), then every repeat only cleaned up afterward and every effect not looked for after recovery, with the fix for each. This reads every effect a task can duplicate other than payment, which it lists without a judgment: a payment charged twice is wever_double-charge-check, one timed-out checkout against the merchant’s order records is wever_duplicate-order-check and whether one payment or refund flow’s retries are safe is wever_retry-safety-check. Verdict effects_can_repeat, duplicate_gaps, duplicate_unverified or duplicates_checked. POST /api/duplicate-effect-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-recovery-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-recovery/.

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": {
      "effects": "<effects>"
    },
    "name": "wever_duplicate-effect-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowNoThe resume and retry flow, such as booking retries.
runsNoRecovered runs, with how many times each effect happened.
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
effectsYesEach effect a resumed or retried task can repeat.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints; the description adds substantially more: the transport (POST /api/duplicate-effect-check), an explicit no-side-effect guarantee (no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write), the pricing model (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days), the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519-signed receipt. That is exactly the auth/pricing/side-effect context annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is front-loaded with purpose and does carry a usable structure (purpose, scope and siblings, verdicts, endpoint, safety, price, contract link). But it is a run-on of very long sentences and repeats the effect taxonomy ('a message, an order, a record, a booking or something else' and again 'messages sent twice, orders placed twice, records created twice, bookings doubled'), plus the guard list appears twice; trimming those redundancies would cost nothing.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the report contents (effect-by-effect verdict, unguarded effects, per-attempt idempotency keys, effects seen happening more often than expected, repeats only cleaned up afterward, the fix for each) and the verdict vocabulary. Pricing, auth binding, and the contract/human-page links round out what an agent needs before calling.

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%, so the schema already documents flow, runs, label and every effects sub-field including the guard and key_per enums. The description restates those semantics (guard variants, what one key covers, checked-after-recovery, receiver-drops-repeats) rather than adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case rules beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: it checks, effect by effect, whether duplicated effects are caught after a resume/retry, and emits a signed report with a named verdict (effects_can_repeat, duplicate_gaps, duplicate_unverified, duplicates_checked). It also explicitly carves out the payment case and names the sibling that owns it, so an agent can tell it apart from wever_double-charge-check, wever_duplicate-order-check and wever_retry-safety-check without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: duplicated payments go to wever_double-charge-check, one timed-out checkout against merchant order records to wever_duplicate-order-check, and retry safety of a payment/refund flow to wever_retry-safety-check. The exclusion ('every effect a task can duplicate other than payment') and the positive case (effects a resumed or retried task can repeat) are both stated.

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