semantic-saga-mcp

get_saga

Audit progress and diagnose failures by retrieving a saga's workflow DAG, checkpoints, action versions, results, approvals, and recovery state.

Instructions

Inspect saga, workflow DAG, checkpoints, action versions, results, approvals, and recovery state.

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": "get_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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Inspect' signals a read-only operation, and the enumerated facets clarify what can be viewed, but the description does not mention side effects, error behavior, or whether inspecting recovery state triggers any recovery computation.

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 sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every listed item is substantive, and there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given that no output schema is provided, the description compensates by listing the major return categories: saga, workflow DAG, checkpoints, action versions, results, approvals, and recovery state. It omits error cases and whether the response is a full dump or summary, but for a single-parameter inspect tool the coverage is strong.

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?

The single parameter saga_id is self-explanatory from its name and title, and the description's 'Inspect saga' connects it to the target saga. The description does not add identifier format or lookup semantics, but with one simple string parameter, the schema and parameter name carry most of the meaning.

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 opens with the verb 'Inspect' and a specific resource ('saga'), then enumerates the state facets included: workflow DAG, checkpoints, action versions, results, approvals, and recovery state. This makes the tool's purpose clear and helps distinguish it from narrower siblings like get_action, though it does not explicitly name 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 description implies this is the comprehensive read/inspection tool for saga state, giving an agent a reason to use it when broad state is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with get_saga_timeline or get_action, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server