Well

Get reconciliation link

well_get_reconciliation_link

Read-only

Read one reconciliation link of the workspace by its id: both sides it links (type and id), the relationship, how it came to exist (action), its status (active, pending_review or rejected), the confidence, the reasoning and the review task that decides it, if any. Use it when the user asks why two records are linked. To confirm or reject a link that waits for review, call well_resolve_reconciliation_task with its review_task_id. A link that does not exist in this workspace returns an error.

When the token authorizes one workspace, call this directly — no workspace call is needed first. When it authorizes several, this read will not guess which one you mean: pass workspace_id on the call.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several: this read reports one workspace's own figures and will not choose which.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
`workspace_scope`	No	Restrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.
`reconciliation_link_id`	Yes	The link, from well_list_reconciliation_links.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`link`	No
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
`newly_connected`	No	Tools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
`resolved_workspace`	No	The workspace that answered, when the caller named none and the token authorizes several.
`conversation_id_note`	No	Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
`conversation_id_source`	No	Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / link / properties / review_task_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / link / properties / review_task_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / link / properties / updated_at / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / link / properties / updated_at / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / resolved_workspace / properties / name / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / resolved_workspace / properties / name / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
AddedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds non-obvious behavior on top: a link outside the workspace returns an error rather than empty, and a multi-workspace token makes the read fail rather than guess a workspace. It also names the status vocabulary and what the read surfaces, which is context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and returned fields, then alternative routing, then edge behavior — a sound ordering with no filler sentences. The trailing workspace paragraph is somewhat long and partly duplicates the workspace_id schema description, costing a point.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description still covers the remaining gaps an agent would hit — missing-link errors, multi-workspace disambiguation, and the hand-off to well_resolve_reconciliation_task.

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%, with workspace_id, conversation_id, workspace_scope and reconciliation_link_id all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the workspace_id rule and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema for the required id or conversation_id.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Read one reconciliation link ... by its id') and an enumeration of exactly what is returned: both sides, relationship, action, status, confidence, reasoning, review task. It is clearly the single-record counterpart to the sibling well_list_reconciliation_links, which the schema even cites as the id source.

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?

States the triggering intent ('when the user asks why two records are linked') and routes the write path explicitly: 'To confirm or reject a link that waits for review, call well_resolve_reconciliation_task with its review_task_id.' It also gives the workspace-selection rule (direct call for one-workspace tokens, pass workspace_id otherwise), so when-to-use and when-to-deviate are both covered.

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

All Well tools Inspect

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

Need Help?