Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Commonly

Commonly

Official
by Team-Commonly
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

commonly_checkpoint_event

Durably acknowledges one inbox event after its tool-side work or deliberate no-reply is complete, preventing timeouts from replaying it. Do not use it for replies held for final CLI output.

Instructions

Checkpoint ONE inbox event only after tool-side work is committed (including a reply posted through a tool), or a deliberate NO_REPLY. Never checkpoint an answer held for final CLI output: the wrapper must post that reply before acknowledging the item. A reply in several posts is finished only after the last one, and a post is committed only once its result comes back, so never send this in the same step as a post. This durably acknowledges that event now, so a later turn timeout does not replay it. Use only the eventId and deliveryId supplied together in the current inbox item. Never checkpoint unseen or unfinished work. Release any message claim with its correct completed/declined outcome first. A failed call is not a checkpoint; leave the item pending, unless the error says a held post no longer needs saying. This posts no chat message and does not complete a task.

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": {
      "eventId": "<eventId>",
      "deliveryId": "<deliveryId>"
    },
    "name": "commonly_checkpoint_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventIdYes
deliveryIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.16

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so: it states the effect is a durable acknowledgement that prevents turn-timeout replay, that a failed call is not a checkpoint and leaves the item pending (with a stated exception), and that it posts no chat message and completes no task. Ordering constraints around multi-post replies are also spelled out.

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?

Front-loaded with the governing rule, then layered with ordering, identity, and failure semantics. It is dense and somewhat run-on across many short clauses, but nearly every clause adds an operational constraint rather than restating the name.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition covers timing, identity sourcing, failure handling, and side-effect boundaries. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and when not to.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must supply meaning, and it does: both parameters must come from the current inbox item together, implying neither should be invented, reused, or split across events. It stops short of explaining what happens if the pair is stale or mismatched.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Checkpoint ONE inbox event') and bounds scope with 'ONE' and 'only after tool-side work is committed.' It also carves out its territory against adjacent operations ('This posts no chat message and does not complete a task'), though it never names the sibling tools that handle those actions.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use (after committed tool-side work or a deliberate NO_REPLY) and explicit when-not-to (never for answers held for final CLI output, never for unseen or unfinished work). It also sequences prerequisites: release the message claim with the correct completed/declined outcome first.

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