Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-for-cascadeur

mcp-for-cascadeur

by Rickcy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

recovery_status

Read-only

Check recovery readiness by reading the persistent write fence, checkpoint match, and remaining journal capacity.

Instructions

Read the persistent write fence, checkpoint match and remaining journal capacity.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "recovery_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, non-destructive, closed-world probe. The description adds that it reports a fence, a checkpoint match, and residual journal capacity, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not explain what those values mean, what a mismatch implies, or what the response looks like — and with no output schema, that burden falls entirely here.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The enumerated data items are the most useful part and appear immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With zero parameters and a rich annotation set, the only real gap is return-value semantics, and there is no output schema to cover it. Naming the three reported items is a start, but an agent still cannot tell what a 'write fence' value or a 'checkpoint match' flag actually signifies.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste space on argument semantics.

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 leads with a specific verb ('Read') and names three concrete data items: the persistent write fence, checkpoint match, and remaining journal capacity. That distinguishes it from the recovery_* siblings that mutate state (recovery_restore, recovery_open), though the terminology is specialized and the description never explicitly contrasts itself with recovery_verify or checkpoint_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several closely related siblings (recovery_verify, checkpoint_status, transaction_status) that an agent could easily confuse with this one. Usage is only implied by the word 'Read'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools