Skip to main content
Glama
applogico

blipr-mcp

by applogico
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Check for a reply to an earlier ask / request_ack (non-blocking by default)

check_reply

Retrieve whether a human replied to an earlier question or ack after a timeout or cancellation, using the returned message_id to resume and optionally long-poll for a response.

Instructions

Look up whether the human has replied to a question or ack you sent earlier — use it to resume after ask/request_ack returned a timeout, or after your client cancelled the blocking call. Pass the message_id (and topic) you got back from that call. Returns immediately by default; set wait_seconds to briefly long-poll. Returns { responded, value?, replied_at? } — value is "yes"/"no" (a yes/no question) or "ack". For an approval gate, only proceed when value === "yes". Replies are kept only ~30 minutes after the original message was sent.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoTopic the original message was sent to. Pass it explicitly when you passed one on the original call; otherwise it falls back to the same default (`.blipr-topic` file, then the BLIPR_TOPIC env var).
message_idYesThe message_id returned by a prior ask / request_ack call.
wait_secondsNoSeconds to long-poll for an answer (0 = instant check; default 0).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / wait_seconds / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"Topic the original message was sent to. Defaults to the BLIPR_TOPIC env var."New value: +"Topic the original message was sent to. Pass it explicitly when you passed one on the original call; otherwise it falls back to the same default (`.blipr-topic` file, then the BLIPR_TOPIC env var)."
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses non-blocking-by-default behavior, the optional long-poll, the ~30 minute retention window for replies, and the decision rule (only proceed on value === "yes"). The remaining gap is what happens for an unknown/expired message_id (error vs. responded:false), which an agent would want to know.

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?

Purpose and the resume scenario are front-loaded, and the return-shape and retention sentences each carry real information. It is dense with em-dash asides and slightly packed, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — it does precisely, including the yes/no/ack `value` domain and the approval-gate rule. Retention and polling behavior round it out; only failure behavior for an expired message_id is left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the provenance of `message_id`/`topic` and the long-poll intent of `wait_seconds`, but adds no format or boundary detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up whether the human has replied') and scopes it to a question or ack sent earlier. This clearly separates it from the write-side siblings (ask, request_ack) that create the request being checked.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names the exact triggering conditions: after `ask`/`request_ack` returned a timeout, or after the client cancelled the blocking call. It also tells the agent to reuse the `message_id` and `topic` from that earlier call, so the entry path is unambiguous.

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