Oxyo (oxyo.si) — Cut Coding Agent Token & Quota Burn by up to 72%

oxyo_causal_record

Record or reinforce a directed cause-and-effect link in the project root-cause graph, returning updated edge confidence and observation counts. Use when logging newly verified bug causes or system dependencies; use oxyo_causal_infer to query paths.

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": {
      "cause": "<cause>",
      "effect": "<effect>"
    },
    "name": "oxyo_causal_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cause`	Yes	Upstream trigger component, config change, or condition (e.g. 'missing_db_index').
`scope`	No	Project/repo scope for isolating causal graphs (defaults to 'global').
`action`	No	Relationship verb connecting cause to effect (e.g. 'causes', 'prevents', 'triggers').	causes
`effect`	Yes	Downstream symptom, failure mode, or system outcome (e.g. 'checkout_timeout_504').
`polarity`	No	Direction of influence: 1 if cause increases/triggers effect, -1 if it prevents/reduces it.
`succeeded`	No	True if the link was confirmed in practice; False to down-weight a refuted hypothesis.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedNov 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / action / description

Added value: +"Relationship verb connecting cause to effect (e.g. 'causes', 'prevents', 'triggers')."

addedInput schema / properties / cause / description

Added value: +"Upstream trigger component, config change, or condition (e.g. 'missing_db_index')."

addedInput schema / properties / effect / description

Added value: +"Downstream symptom, failure mode, or system outcome (e.g. 'checkout_timeout_504')."

addedInput schema / properties / polarity / description

Added value: +"Direction of influence: 1 if cause increases/triggers effect, -1 if it prevents/reduces it."

changedInput schema / properties / scope / description

Previous value: -"Optional project/repo scope (default 'global')"New value: +"Project/repo scope for isolating causal graphs (defaults to 'global')."

addedInput schema / properties / succeeded / description

Added value: +"True if the link was confirmed in practice; False to down-weight a refuted hypothesis."

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real context: the write is an upsert/reinforce semantic and it returns updated edge confidence and observation counts despite no output schema. It stops short of explaining merge behavior on conflicting polarity or action verbs across repeated calls.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, zero filler, with the operation and its return value front-loaded and the alternative tool routed in the second clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers operation, return semantics, and sibling routing. Minor gaps remain around repeated-call behavior given idempotentHint=false and reinforcement semantics.

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 baseline applies: cause, effect, scope, action, polarity, and succeeded are all documented inline. The description contributes no additional parameter-level guidance such as naming conventions or how scope isolation interacts with the 'global' default.

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 pair and resource ('Record or reinforce a directed cause-and-effect link in the project root-cause graph') and immediately contrasts with the read-side sibling `oxyo_causal_infer` for querying paths. An agent can distinguish write vs. query without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states both the when ('logging newly verified bug causes or system dependencies') and the alternative ('use `oxyo_causal_infer` to query paths'). That is an explicit use/use-instead split rather than implied context.

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

All Oxyo (oxyo.si) — Cut Coding Agent Token & Quota Burn by up to 72% tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.