Skip to main content
Glama

SaSame MCP Observatory + Gold Rush Town

by online.sasame

factory_resolve_dead_letter

OWNER-ONLY. Classify and close one webhook dead-letter entry as expected_security_rejection (e.g. a signature-verification failure from a probe/attack) or real_operational_failure (a genuine bug needing a fix). Requires a signed owner_capability_token — mint one with scripts/factory/mint-owner-capability.mjs (VPS-only, requires the real trust signing key). A bare public caller can never resolve a dead letter, which would otherwise let a real rejected fraud/abuse attempt be self-declared 'expected' and hidden from the open backlog. Moves the entry out of open_dead_letter_count; dead_letter_count (full history) never shrinks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoOptional free-text context for the classification
classificationYesWhy this dead letter happened, as judged by the owner
dead_letter_idYesThe fdl_... id from factory_health/receipts
owner_capability_tokenYesRelease-bound, single-use, short-lived token signed with SaSame's trust key, minted for the dead-letter-resolution audience

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds detailed behavioral context beyond annotations: describes effect on open_dead_letter_count vs dead_letter_count, security implications, and token requirements. Annotations are minimal, so description carries the burden excellently.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and ownership. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Length is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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?

Covers ownership, token, classification, and count effects. Lacks description of return value/response, but as a mutation tool without output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minor extra context (e.g., token being 'Release-bound, single-use, short-lived'), but overall adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool classifies and closes a webhook dead-letter entry into two categories. It uses specific verbs and resource, but does not distinguish from sibling tools directly.

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?

Provides explicit ownership requirement, token minting instructions, and security rationale. Does not list alternative tools but gives clear context for when to use.

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