semantic-saga-mcp

execute_saga_step

Execute an action after governance, schema, and policy checks pass, enabling controlled saga steps with automatic reverse-order compensation on failure.

Instructions

Immediately execute an action after current governance, schema, and action-policy 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>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "execute_saga_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`saga_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It reveals that checks occur before execution, but it does not state whether execution is reversible, what happens if checks fail, whether it writes/commits, or what it returns—critical gaps for a tool whose name implies mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is concise but under-specified for a three-parameter execution tool, so the brevity is not fully earned.

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?

Given three required parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and many saga-related siblings, the description lacks information about return values, side effects, and how this call relates to plan/approve/retry/rollback steps. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It mentions 'action' only in passing and gives no meaning for saga_id, the action string, or the free-form input object; an agent cannot infer what values to supply.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: immediately execute an action, and adds the qualifying context of governance/schema/action-policy checks. It is distinguishable from siblings like plan_saga_step or run_ready_steps by the 'immediately execute' phrasing, though it never names an alternative.

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 governance, schema, and action-policy checks' implies the tool is the execution step used once checks are satisfied. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to sibling tools such as plan_saga_step, approve_saga_step, or run_ready_steps.

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

Deploy Server