Recover uncertain mutations after a timeout or process restart by retrieving retained command IDs, so you can retry the exact command instead of creating a duplicate task.
Recover uncertain mutations after a timeout or process restart. Retained seven days; returns command IDs without payloads. Retry the exact command instead of creating another task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds value beyond them: a seven-day retention window and the fact that payloads are omitted from results. That return-shape detail is genuinely useful and not contradicted by the readOnlyHint, since the actual retry happens in a sibling tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then retention/return facts, then the recommended follow-up action. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what comes back (IDs without payloads) and how long data survives. The one gap is not explicitly linking the returned command IDs to team_time_retry_command, though the 'retry the exact command' sentence strongly implies it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed, and nothing further about parameters is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Recover uncertain mutations') and clarifies the return ('command IDs without payloads'), which is enough to distinguish it from task-creation siblings. It does not name the closely related team_time_retry_command, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives a clear triggering condition ('after a timeout or process restart') and a concrete alternative to avoid ('instead of creating another task'). What's missing is an explicit pointer to team_time_retry_command, which is the natural next step after using this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.