lattice-mcp

lattice_test_backup_destination

Verify backup destination connectivity and credentials using a connected worker's WebSocket without writing a real backup.

Instructions

Test connectivity and credentials for a backup destination without writing a real backup. The test is dispatched over the worker's WebSocket, so worker_id is required and that worker must be connected

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "worker_id": "<worker_id>"
    },
    "name": "lattice_test_backup_destination"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Backup destination ID
`worker_id`	Yes	Worker to run the test from — required; the test runs on this worker over its WebSocket, so it must be connected

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the WebSocket dispatch mechanism, worker connectivity requirement, and that no real backup is written. However, it does not mention potential error states, timeouts, or return behavior, which limits transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently explains the mechanism in the second sentence.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), and the description covers purpose, mechanism, and a key precondition. It could mention expected output (e.g., success/failure indication) for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining why worker_id is required (WebSocket dispatch) and the worker connectivity condition, going beyond the schema's field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Test connectivity and credentials for a backup destination without writing a real backup.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes this tool from sibling test tools like lattice_test_webhook or lattice_test_registry.

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?

It specifies when to use (test connectivity/credentials) and provides critical context: 'dispatched over the worker's WebSocket, so worker_id is required and that worker must be connected.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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

Deploy Server