Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ChatCut

by io.chatcut
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

read_diagnostic_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read original server-side failure evidence for this authenticated user's actual HTTP request ID. Use the request ID retained from the failed response. Missing or expired evidence stays a gap; it does not mean the original issue recovered. Client telemetry is not server business evidence. This tool performs no repair or business-operation replay.

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": {
      "requestId": "<requestId>"
    },
    "name": "read_diagnostic_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
requestIdYesActual X-Request-ID from the failed server response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description is not required to restate safety. It does add genuinely new behavioral context: evidence may be missing or expired, and such a gap must not be read as recovery. It stops short of describing the response shape or how much evidence is returned.

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?

The purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence adds a distinct constraint (provenance, gap semantics, negative guarantees). The clipped phrasing ('Client telemetry is not server business evidence') is efficient but slightly cryptic, keeping it off a 5.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should hint at what 'evidence' actually contains, since nothing else documents the return value. It is complete on when and how to call, but an agent still cannot anticipate whether it receives log lines, an error trace, or a status summary.

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; the description earns above that by constraining the parameter to the user's own request ID taken from the failed response, which is an authorization and provenance constraint the schema's format/pattern does not express.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read original server-side failure evidence') and narrows the scope to 'this authenticated user's actual HTTP request ID', which separates it from the client-telemetry and repair/replay tools in the sibling list. An agent can classify this as a diagnostic read without opening the 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 states the trigger condition clearly: use the request ID retained from the failed response, meaning this runs after a failure has already been observed. It also rules out adjacent activities (client telemetry, repair, business-operation replay), though it never names a sibling tool as the alternative for those cases.

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

All ChatCut toolsInspect
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