Reconstruct

Get replay step

get_replay_step

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return one replay step result.json (pass/fail and observed outcome).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`step`	Yes	One-based scenario or replay step index from its manifest steps[].index. Must be at least 1 and identify a recorded step.
`replay`	Yes	Stored replay key returned by list_replays for the selected product version.
`product`	Yes	Product key, for example finance-ozon-ru
`version`	Yes	Exact capture version returned by list_versions. Pin the same version across related calls; do not use latest as an alias.
`environment`	No	Environment ID from the selected backend platform type in list_platforms.options.platforms[].environments[].id (backend implementation). Omit only when the version has one captured environment. Use captured pairs from list_platforms/list_versions for actual availability.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / product / description

Added value: +"Product key, for example finance-ozon-ru"

addedInput schema / properties / replay / description

Added value: +"Stored replay key returned by list_replays for the selected product version."

addedInput schema / properties / step / description

Added value: +"One-based scenario or replay step index from its manifest steps[].index. Must be at least 1 and identify a recorded step."

addedInput schema / properties / version / description

Added value: +"Exact capture version returned by list_versions. Pin the same version across related calls; do not use latest as an alias."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "replayStep": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Stored replay result with observed outcome; only recorded evidence is returned",
+      "properties": {
+        "error": {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "description": "Text value",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "null"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        "passed": {
+          "description": "Whether this condition holds",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Structured result. Existing text or image content remains available in content.",
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/replayStep"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one piece of content context - that the payload is a pass/fail verdict with an observed outcome - but says nothing about behavior such as error handling when the step is missing or how large the response is. Modest added value over annotations.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, front-loading the verb ('Return') and the resource ('one replay step'). It is efficient, though very terse for a tool with a four-parameter required chain.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool that requires product, version, replay, and step, the description omits the prerequisite discovery flow entirely (relying on the schema text) and gives no hint about what a failed step looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and all five parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the one-based step index and the environment default). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: it returns one replay step, identified concretely as the result.json artifact containing pass/fail and observed outcome. It implicitly separates 'replay step' from the many get_* siblings (replay manifest, replay step image, scenario step), but never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The description does not tell the agent when to pick this over get_replay_manifest or get_replay_step_image, nor does it state the prerequisite chain (obtain replay via list_replays, version via list_versions). Usable context exists only in the schema's parameter descriptions, not here.

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

All Reconstruct tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?