Replay a retained mutation with its original UUID, method, path, and payload after an uncertain response, while rechecking credential access and not rebasing stale versions.
Replay a retained mutation with its original UUID, method, path, and payload. Use after an uncertain response. Does not rebase stale versions. Rechecks credential access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commandId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious semantics the annotations cannot express: version state is not rebased and credential access is rechecked at replay time. What is missing is failure behavior when the retained command has expired.
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 core action, then the trigger, then the caveats. No wasted words and nothing buried.
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?
With a single required param, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly sufficient but leaves two operational gaps: how to acquire a valid commandId and what a replay failure returns. Those are exactly the things an agent needs before calling a destructive replay tool.
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?
There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It implies the UUID identifies the retained mutation, but never says where to obtain commandId (presumably team_time_pending_commands) nor what happens if the UUID is unknown or already replayed.
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 (replay) and resource (retained mutation), and enumerates what is replayed: original UUID, method, path, payload. An agent can distinguish it from team_time_pending_commands (which presumably lists rather than replays), though the description never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
"Use after an uncertain response" is a concrete trigger condition, and the two follow-on sentences implicitly define when-not-to-rely-on-it (stale versions are not rebased). It stops short of naming the alternative action, e.g. issuing a fresh command or calling team_time_pending_commands to find the ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.