GAIP Integration Repair Agent

Why did my agent call fail?

gaip_diagnose_integration_failure

Use this when an agent, MCP or API call failed ("why did my call fail?", "what does this 429 mean?"). Pass the failure ({code, detail}) or the raw error text. Returns the likely cause, when and how to retry, fix steps and a receipt. GAIP touches no other system. Free, no account; records a GAIP receipt only. Inputs must be public and non-personal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`failure`	Yes	The failure: {code, detail?, http_status?}, e.g. {"code": 429, "detail": "Too Many Requests; Retry-After: 20"}.
`protocol`	No	Counterparty protocol. Inferred from metadata when omitted, otherwise MCP.
`synthetic`	No	Optional: true marks a test call.
`episode_id`	No	Optional: your own id to group related calls.
`task_class`	No	Optional: short name of the task, e.g. weather_forecast.	integration_failure_diagnosis
`counterparty_id`	No	Name or URL of the agent/service. Optional.
`continuity_handle`	No	Optional: the continuity_handle from an earlier GAIP result; links this call to your earlier ones.
`data_classification`	No	PUBLIC (default) or NON_PERSONAL_PUBLIC. Never send personal data.	PUBLIC
`independent_operator_id`	No	Optional: your operator id (recorded as a claim, not verified).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / failure / description

Previous value: -"The error: {code, detail}. code is an HTTP status, JSON-RPC/A2A/MCP code or error text."New value: +"The failure: {code, detail?, http_status?}, e.g. {\"code\": 429, \"detail\": \"Too Many Requests; Retry-After: 20\"}."

Changed7 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / continuity_handle / description

Added value: +"Optional: the continuity_handle from an earlier GAIP result; links this call to your earlier ones."

addedInput schema / properties / data_classification / description

Added value: +"PUBLIC (default) or NON_PERSONAL_PUBLIC. Never send personal data."

addedInput schema / properties / episode_id / description

Added value: +"Optional: your own id to group related calls."

addedInput schema / properties / failure / description

Added value: +"The error: {code, detail}. code is an HTTP status, JSON-RPC/A2A/MCP code or error text."

addedInput schema / properties / independent_operator_id / description

Added value: +"Optional: your operator id (recorded as a claim, not verified)."

addedInput schema / properties / synthetic / description
```
Added value: +"Optional: true marks a test call."
```

addedInput schema / properties / task_class / description

Added value: +"Optional: short name of the task, e.g. weather_forecast."

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "counterparty_id": "example-weather-agent",
+    "failure": {
+      "code": 429,
+      "detail": "HTTP 429 Too Many Requests; Retry-After: 20"
+    }
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / counterparty_id / description

Added value: +"Name or URL of the agent/service. Optional."

addedInput schema / properties / data_classification / default
```
Added value: +"PUBLIC"
```

addedInput schema / properties / protocol / description

Added value: +"Counterparty protocol. Inferred from metadata when omitted, otherwise MCP."

addedInput schema / properties / task_class / default
```
Added value: +"integration_failure_diagnosis"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "data_classification",
-  "counterparty_id",
-  "task_class",
-  "protocol",
-  "failure"
-]New value: +[
+  "failure"
+]

First observedSep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the side effect ('GAIP touches no other system'), the auth/cost model ('Free, no account'), exactly what is persisted ('records a GAIP receipt only'), and a data-handling constraint ('Inputs must be public and non-personal'). This accounts for the non-readOnly/non-idempotent annotation profile by explaining that only a receipt is written.

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?

It is front-loaded with the triggering scenario and what to pass before moving to outputs and constraints, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly parenthetical-heavy, but there is no filler.

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 no output schema, the description still enumerates the return contents (likely cause, when/how to retry, fix steps, receipt), and with 9 params at 100% schema coverage the remaining fields are self-documenting. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies the required 'failure' payload shape ({code, detail}) and, notably, that raw error text is an acceptable alternative input. It does not explain the optional continuity_handle or episode_id linkage beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource — diagnosing a failed agent/MCP/API call and returning cause, retry guidance, and fix steps. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like gaip_observatory_lookup, gaip_watch_events, or check_agent_conformance, which observe or monitor rather than diagnose a single failure.

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 gives concrete invocation triggers ('why did my call fail?', 'what does this 429 mean?') and tells the agent what to pass (the failure object or raw error text). It does not name an explicit alternative tool or state when NOT to use this, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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

All GAIP Integration Repair Agent tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Why did my agent call fail?

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources