Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

LexQ

by io.lexq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Start Window Replay (Blast Radius)

lexq_replay_start
Destructive

Submit an async job that replays a date window of past executions against a candidate version and measures the blast radius (how many decisions change). Billed per replayed record (REPLAY metric); VIEWER role cannot submit. Poll with lexq_replay_status.

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": {
      "candidateVersionId": "<candidateVersionId>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "lexq_replay_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesWindow end date, yyyy-MM-dd, a whole calendar day in the organization time zone (tenantTimezone in whoami), not UTC. Inclusive: the whole day counts.
fromYesWindow start date, yyyy-MM-dd, a whole calendar day in the organization time zone (tenantTimezone in whoami), not UTC. Inclusive.
maxRecordsNoSample cap (server default applies; hard cap 50k)
candidateVersionIdYesVersion to re-evaluate against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds materially new behaviour — the job is asynchronous, it is metered per replayed record under a REPLAY billing metric, and submission is role-gated. It leaves unexplained why the tool is flagged destructive (resource/cost consumption) and says nothing about cancellation via lexq_replay_cancel.

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 dense sentences: the operation and outcome first, then the operational constraints (billing, role, polling) in order of practical importance. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 job-submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the follow-up path (poll with lexq_replay_status) and the billing model. It omits what the submission returns (a job identifier) and any indication of expected duration or how to abort, which would matter for an agent managing a long-running, billed job.

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 coverage is 100%, with the from/to timezone and inclusivity rules and the 50k maxRecords cap all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only high-level framing ('date window of past executions', 'candidate version'), no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb chain (submit an async job) plus the resource (a date window of past executions) and the outcome measured (blast radius / how many decisions change). It is unmistakably about replay rather than deployment or simulation, though it never names the near-neighbour lexq_simulation_start or lexq_dry_run_compare to sharpen the boundary.

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 supplies clear operational guidance: this is async and must be polled with lexq_replay_status, and VIEWER role cannot submit. It does not say when to prefer this over lexq_simulation_start or a plain lexq_dry_run, so the exclusion set against siblings is only partial.

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

All LexQ toolsInspect
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.

Resources