Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Migration cutover check

wever_migration-cutover-check

Read-only

Agent Migration: submit the switch-over plan for one move: optionally when the cutover starts and ends, the expected downtime and whether both systems run during the switch; each phase of the switch (such as freeze, copy, switch or settle) with when it starts and ends and which system is authoritative in it (the source, the target, both or neither); and each kind of work in flight (payments, jobs, messages, webhooks, orders or other) with how it is handled (drained before the switch, replayed after, forwarded, paused, dropped, or no plan) and who owns it. The signed report gives every phase with its authority, every kind of work in flight with its handling, and names a cutover that is unsafe: a phase where both systems are authoritative or two overlapping phases with different authorities, a phase or a gap between phases where neither is, and work in flight that is dropped or given no plan; then payments, jobs or messages the plan never mentions and handling with no named owner, with the fix for each. Halting a running agent system is wever_kill-switch-check, the general rollback path for an action’s effects is wever_rollback-path-check and a single handover of work between parties is wever_handover-check. Verdict cutover_unsafe, cutover_gaps, cutover_unverified or cutover_single_authority. POST /api/migration-cutover-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write, and no data is moved. 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-migration-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-migration/.

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_migration-cutover-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`phases`	No	Each phase of the switch-over with the system that is authoritative in it.
`cutover`	No
`in_flight`	No	What happens to each kind of work in flight during the switch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it reads only material in the call, makes no network request, moves no data, and changes no configuration. It also discloses cost (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, plus 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and the Ed25519 signed receipt on the return.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the body is three long run-on sentences, and the report contents are effectively listed twice (once as "the signed report gives every phase..." and again as the enumeration of unsafe conditions). The field-by-field restatement duplicates the schema and could be cut without losing agent-relevant 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?

With four parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so: it describes the signed report's structure, names all four verdicts (cutover_unsafe, cutover_gaps, cutover_unverified, cutover_single_authority), and points to the contract and human page. An agent has enough to decide, call, and interpret the result.

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 75% and the schema already spells out phase names, authority enum meanings, and handling options. The description restates those same fields in prose (start/end, downtime, parallel run, drain/replay/forward/pause/drop/none) but adds little new syntax or constraint information, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("submit the switch-over plan for one move") and enumerates exactly what the submission contains: cutover window, phases with authority, and in-flight work with handling and owner. It also names the sibling tools it is not (wever_kill-switch-check, wever_rollback-path-check, wever_handover-check), so an agent can separate this from the rest of the migration family 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes three adjacent needs to other tools: halting a running agent system, the general rollback path, and a single handover between parties. That is genuine when-to-use guidance for the closest alternatives, but there is no explicit negative case (e.g. "do not use this to plan the migration itself, use wever_migration-scope-check") and no stated prerequisites for a valid submission.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails 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?