Skip to main content
Glama

ATTRACTOR Verification & State

read_solution

Read-only

Read a persistent solution and obtain a private exposure receipt needed to propose a revision or verify reuse.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
attractor_trace_idNoOptional public correlation handle from a prior result; not authentication or proof of identity.
attractor_knowledge_idNoOptional prior result handle. Reuse is counted only when the supplied value matches that result fingerprint.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / attractor_knowledge_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional prior result handle. Reuse is counted only when the supplied value matches that result fingerprint.",
      +  "pattern": "^ATR-K-[a-f0-9]{64}$",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / attractor_trace_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional public correlation handle from a prior result; not authentication or proof of identity.",
      +  "pattern": "^ATR-T-[a-f0-9]{32}$",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "properties": {
      +        "artifact": {
      +          "type": "object"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "artifact"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "properties": {
      +        "error": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "request_id": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "error"
      +      ],
      +      "type": "object"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description aligns with these and adds value by revealing that the tool returns a 'private exposure receipt' and that reuse is counted conditionally, which is not covered by annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and outcome, with no wasted words. It is concise and structurally sound.

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?

The tool has an output schema and read-only annotations, so the description does not need to cover return values or side effects. The purpose, usage context, and behavioral nuance are sufficiently conveyed; minor gaps like parameter specifics are already handled by the schema.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for two of three parameters (attractor_trace_id and attractor_knowledge_id), leaving only 'id' undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with 67% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb (read), the resource (persistent solution), and the specific outcome (obtain a private exposure receipt). It also ties the outcome to two explicit use cases (propose a revision or verify reuse), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_solutions or verify_reuse.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is needed for proposing a revision or verifying reuse. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use it, but the stated use cases effectively guide selection.

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.