Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
semantic-saga-mcp

semantic-saga-mcp

by ananthaprakashb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

checkpoint_saga

Persist a named workflow checkpoint with custom data, enabling progress tracking and reliable recovery or compensation in multi-step processes.

Instructions

Persist a named workflow checkpoint and operator/agent-provided checkpoint data.

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": {
      "saga_id": "<saga_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "checkpoint_saga"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
nameYes
saga_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a persistent write operation but does not disclose whether an existing checkpoint is overwritten, whether the saga must already exist, whether data is optional, or what side effects occur.

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 a single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded. It contains no filler and communicates the core action and object quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, one sentence is not enough. Missing context includes when checkpoints should be persisted, how naming works, overwrite behavior, and whether saga_id references an existing saga.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'name' (the checkpoint's name) and 'data' (operator/agent-provided checkpoint data), but it does not explain the saga_id parameter's role or the expected shape of the nested data object.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Persist', and names a distinct resource: a named workflow checkpoint plus operator/agent-provided data. This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishes it from the saga execution/rollback/commit siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as begin_saga, execute_saga_step, commit_saga, or rollback_saga. The description states what the tool does but not the conditions under which an agent should call it.

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