Skip to main content
Glama

Costory: Your Finops MCP

retry_report_execution

Destructive

Retry one failed Costory report execution at its existing destination. Use to recover that failed delivery after checking its outcome. A retry can send messages and cannot retract content delivered by earlier attempts. DANGER ZONE: state the failed execution and its destination from get_report_execution, then ask the user to confirm before calling. Use after partial failure.

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": {
      "executionId": "<executionId>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "retry_report_execution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNoOrganization slug. Omit to auto-detect from your account (fails if you belong to multiple orgs).
contextYesA few words on why you are calling this tool, for the server developer's analytics. Describe people and things by role, such as "a customer". Do not quote the user or include names, emails, or other personal details.
llm_modelNoThe model identifier you are running as, for example "claude-opus-4-8" or "gpt-5.2". Pass "unknown" if you are not certain. Recorded for the server developer's analytics.
executionIdYesReport execution id to retry.
conversation_idNoThe conversation_id this server returned earlier in this conversation, unchanged, including after later user messages. Omit it if you have none. Recorded for the server developer's analytics.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / context / description
      Previous value: -"Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\""New value: +"A few words on why you are calling this tool, for the server developer's analytics. Describe people and things by role, such as \"a customer\". Do not quote the user or include names, emails, or other personal details."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "executionId",
      -  "context",
      -  "llm_model"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "executionId",
      +  "context"
      +]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / context
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Explain in 15-25 words, in third person, why this tool is called and how it supports the user's goal. For analytics only. You MUST describe only the abstract purpose of the tool call. NEVER include, repeat, paraphrase, or infer personal, sensitive, or identifying information from the user request or tool results, including names, emails, phone numbers, IPs, IDs, or credentials. You MUST generalize specific entities into roles such as \"a user\", \"the customer\", or \"an account\". Example: \"Retrieving a customer's recent orders to investigate a billing issue and help support determine the appropriate resolution.\"",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The conversation_id this server returned earlier in this conversation, unchanged, including after later user messages. Omit it if you have none. Recorded for the server developer's analytics.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / llm_model
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The model identifier you are running as, for example \"claude-opus-4-8\" or \"gpt-5.2\". Pass \"unknown\" if you are not certain. Recorded for the server developer's analytics.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "executionId"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "executionId",
      +  "context",
      +  "llm_model"
      +]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, yet the description still adds substantive behavior: a retry can send messages and cannot retract content already delivered by earlier attempts, i.e. duplicate-delivery risk. It also imposes a confirm-before-calling protocol, which is exactly the context an agent needs before a destructive side-effecting call.

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?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the risk warning sits prominently in the middle. The trailing fragment 'Use after partial failure' partly duplicates the earlier 'after checking its outcome' and slightly weakens the ordering.

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 five-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent most needs: side effects, irreversibility of prior deliveries, prerequisite lookup, and human confirmation. The only minor omission is what a successful retry returns (a new execution id versus the same one), which the schema does not otherwise cover.

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 executionId format, the org slug auto-detect behavior, and the analytics-only context fields. The description adds only sourcing guidance (take the failed execution and destination from get_report_execution), which is modest added meaning at the baseline level.

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 and resource ('Retry one failed Costory report execution') with tight scope qualifiers: one, failed, and at its existing destination. That scope language alone separates it from generic re-run tools and from the inspection sibling get_report_execution, which the description also names.

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?

Gives a clear use condition ('recover that failed delivery after checking its outcome', 'after partial failure') and an explicit prerequisite workflow: read the execution and destination via get_report_execution first, then get user confirmation. It does not say when not to retry (e.g. successful executions or deliberate cancellations), but the gating conditions are concrete.

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