Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Wever Labs Agent Products

by io.github.CodeWever
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Failure notice check

wever_failure-notice-check
Read-only

Agent Recovery: submit a failure-handling flow: who the task is done for and how soon they should hear after a task fails for good, each notice sent then with who it goes to and whether that is the principal, an operator, a team channel or only a log, how soon it goes out and whether it says what failed, what state the work is in and what happens next, plus optionally the tasks that failed for good with when the principal heard and whether from the system, from an operator by hand or by finding out on their own. The signed report says who is told when a task fails for good, how fast and with what detail, and names no notice, notices that reach only operators, channels or logs, and every failure the principal found out about on their own, then every notice past the target, every notice missing what failed, the state of the work or what happens next, and every principal told by hand or late, with the fix for each. This reads the notice to the principal: who owns the response to an incident is wever_incident-ownership-check, an incident response plan’s notification windows are wever_incident-plan-check and where a refused or failed handed-off task goes is wever_handoff-failure-check. Verdict principal_finds_out, notice_gaps, notice_unverified or principal_told. POST /api/failure-notice-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/.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowNoThe failure-handling flow, such as booking failures.
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
targetNoHow soon the principal should hear after a task fails for good, such as 15 minutes.
noticesYesEach notice sent when a task fails for good.
failuresNoTasks that failed for good, with when and how the principal heard.
principalNoWho the task is done for, such as the traveler.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, the description discloses pricing (0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact), free-call limits, wallet-proof binding requirements, the no-network/no-write execution model, signed Ed25519 receipt output, and the possible verdicts. This is substantial behavioral context an agent would otherwise lack.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single dense run-on paragraph with repeated clause structures ('every notice past the target, every notice missing what failed...') and the key purpose is not front-loaded. Much of the content is relevant, but the structure makes it hard to parse and scan.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-output-schema tool with six parameters and nested arrays, the description covers the input shape, output report contents, signing behavior, pricing, and verdicts sufficiently. It could be better structured, but an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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 explains every parameter including nested notice and failure fields. The description restates these concepts narratively ('who the task is done for and how soon they should hear...') but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool audits a failure-handling flow — who is told when a task fails for good, how fast, and with what detail — and explicitly names sibling tools it is not. The opening phrasing ('Agent Recovery: submit a failure-handling flow: ...') is convoluted and buries the purpose, but the core verb and resource are still identifiable.

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 names three specific alternatives — wever_incident-ownership-check for incident ownership, wever_incident-plan-check for notification windows, and wever_handoff-failure-check for refused or failed handoffs — and distinguishes this tool as the one that reads the notice to the principal. It lacks an explicit 'use when' sentence and exclusions, but the routing guidance is unusually concrete.

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

All Wever Labs Agent Products 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