Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

check_engagement

Read-only

Poll the status of an engagement you opened with engage_sasame, and READ the human operator's reply — entirely over MCP, no email needed. Pass the ticket you got back from engage_sasame. Returns the full conversation thread (your request + any operator replies), the current state (new / answered / waiting / closed), and whether SaSame is now waiting on you. Call this again periodically (e.g. once a day) to pick up the operator's response. Free, read-only, deterministic — no LLM, no network.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticketYesThe engagement ticket returned by engage_sasame (e.g. 'inq_...').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Free, read-only, deterministic — no LLM, no network', which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=true. It also describes the return value in detail (conversation thread, state, waiting flag). No contradictions with 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 concise, consisting of three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the main purpose. It efficiently covers usage, return value, and behavioral traits.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, read-only). The description adequately explains what is returned, how to use it, and behavioral characteristics. Since there is no output schema, the description covers return types and state enums, making it complete for agent usage.

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 a single parameter 'ticket' described as 'The engagement ticket returned by engage_sasame'. The description adds only minor reinforcement ('Pass the `ticket` you got back from engage_sasame'), not substantial new meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action: 'Poll the status of an engagement... and READ the human operator's reply'. It specifies the resource ('engagement you opened with engage_sasame') and the verb ('poll'/'read'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'engage_sasame' (opening) and 'reply_engagement' (sending replies).

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 tells when to use it: after opening an engagement with engage_sasame, passing the ticket. It gives frequency guidance ('call this again periodically, e.g. once a day'). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or alternatives, but the context implies it's for polling only, not for opening or replying.

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

All SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 94 tools spanning overlapping concepts (multiple readiness/audit/grade tools, many status checkers, deprecated aliases like trust_* vs observation_*), agents will frequently struggle to pick the right one. While each tool is individually distinct, the sheer volume and conceptual overlap (e.g., audit_mcp, readiness_report, verify_mcp_ready, lookup_readiness, recommend_mcp, subscribe_grade_changes) create high misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with underscores, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (audit_mcp, verify_mcp_ready, claim_start, check_engagement) while others are noun-first (receipt_issue, meter_open, work_order_open, agent_invoice_status). Deprecated aliases like trust_compare vs observation_compare further break consistency, though the majority remain readable.

Tool Count1/5

94 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single server, even one with broad ambitions like 'observatory + town'. The calibration notes 50+ as extreme mismatch; this server far exceeds that. Many tools are highly specific (e.g., factory_resolve_dead_letter, visit_touch_status, start_here) and could be consolidated or split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of domains (auditing, claiming, receipts, meters, escrow, work orders, gold rush, town, analytics) and offers many CRUD-like operations, but several lifecycle gaps exist: no cancel/close for work orders (only open/accept/deliver/accept_delivery), escrow (only open/attest/status), or meters (only open/charge/status). Given the massive scope, important operations are missing, though core workflows are present.

Resources