semantic-saga-mcp

commit_saga

Commit a completed saga after tenant governance checks pass, finalizing the transaction and preventing further rollback.

Instructions

Commit a completed saga after current tenant governance checks.

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": "commit_saga"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`saga_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the saga is 'committed' and that governance checks occur, but it does not explain side effects, irreversibility, permission requirements, failure behavior, or what happens to the saga after commit. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and states a key precondition efficiently. It could add more useful detail without becoming verbose, but as written it is concise.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining behavior and prerequisites. It mentions governance checks and completion state, but omits return values, side effects, and failure semantics. For a state-changing saga operation, this is incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention saga_id or explain how it is used. The single required parameter is only minimally documented by the schema itself. The description needs to compensate for the schema gap but does not.

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 and resource: 'Commit a completed saga.' This clearly identifies the action and lifecycle phase, distinguishing it from siblings like begin_saga, checkpoint_saga, or rollback_saga. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the scope is reasonably clear.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'after current tenant governance checks' implies a precondition and suggests usage is appropriate once those checks pass. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as checkpoint_saga or rollback_saga, leaving much of the routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server