Skip to main content
Glama

POSTFACT — Resolve Ambiguous Side Effects Before Retry

Server Details

Resolve whether an uncertain side-effecting action completed before software retries it.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL
Repository
GSterlingPress/postfact-api
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
postfact-mcp

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

Full call logging

Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.

Tool access control

Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.

Managed credentials

Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.

Usage analytics

See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 3.9/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another; the purpose is clear and distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

The tool name follows a clean verb_noun pattern ('resolve_outcome'), and with one tool, consistency is trivially maintained.

Tool Count4/5

One tool is minimal but appropriate for the server's narrow, focused purpose. It falls slightly below the typical 3-15 tool range but earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers all necessary outcome states (DONE, NOT_DONE, UNKNOWN), providing a complete resolution mechanism for ambiguous side effects with no apparent gaps.

Available Tools

1 tool
resolve_outcomeResolve Ambiguous Side EffectA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Call after a side-effecting API/tool action fails ambiguously and before retrying. POSTFACT returns DONE only with affirmative completion evidence, NOT_DONE only with affirmative non-execution evidence, otherwise UNKNOWN. UNKNOWN is the safe default.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodNo
statusNo
failureNo
evidenceNo
requestIdNo
sideEffectNo
resourceRefNo
idempotencyKeyNo
transactionRefNo
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the decision rule: DONE requires affirmative completion evidence, NOT_DONE requires affirmative non-execution evidence, otherwise UNKNOWN. This provides valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the when-to-use context, and each word contributes meaning. The reference to 'POSTFACT' is slightly unexplained but does not waste words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 9 parameters, a nested evidence object, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers the high-level decision logic but omits parameter semantics and return format, leaving an agent with significant gaps in knowing how to construct a request or interpret the response.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 9 parameters with zero description coverage, and the description offers no parameter-level guidance. The mention of 'evidence' is conceptual, not mapped to the evidence object structure. An agent would be unable to correctly populate or interpret parameters like method, status, requestId, or sideEffect.

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 clearly states that the tool resolves ambiguous side effects after a side-effecting action fails, and specifies the three possible outcomes (DONE, NOT_DONE, UNKNOWN). This makes the purpose specific and distinguishable, even in the absence of sibling tools.

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?

The description explicitly provides the trigger condition: call after an ambiguous failure and before retrying. It does not mention when not to use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide. No alternative tools are listed, so exclusion criteria are not needed.

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

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.