Skip to main content
Glama
aurumflux20

seal-mcp

by aurumflux20
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

seal_admit

Idempotent

Claim the right to run an irreversible action exactly once, returning a fence when you may proceed or a sealed certificate if it was already completed, preventing duplicate executions on retry.

Instructions

ADMISSION ONLY — prefer seal_propose when it is available, because this tool requires YOU to hold the provider credential and call the provider yourself. Use it only when your own code owns the effect.

Claim the right to run an irreversible action exactly once. Returns fresh=true with a fence (you won — run the effect, then call seal_commit), or fresh=false with the sealed cert (already done — use that result, do NOT re-run), or fresh=false with no cert (someone else is mid-flight — stand down and retry later; if reason is set, an earlier holder's lease expired with no witness for this action: its outcome is UNKNOWN and it will not be re-run — resolve with seal_settle/a witness, not by retrying admit). Always pass a stable key (e.g. 'order-777') for money-class actions: retrying with the same key but different args is refused as a conflict instead of becoming a second charge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoStable id for this logical action. Strongly recommended.
argsYesThe effect's arguments.
actionYesWhat kind of effect, e.g. 'charge'.
domainNoBlast-radius scope, e.g. 'customer:42'. Frozen domains refuse admission.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explains return outcomes (fresh=true with fence, fresh=false with sealed cert, fresh=false without cert), idempotency, conflict behavior on same key with different args, and irreversibility. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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 front-loaded with the key admission concept but is somewhat verbose and repetitive, with all-caps emphasis and surrounding wording that could be tightened. It still communicates the necessary information without being excessively long.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return cases and conflict semantics. It also mentions frozen domains, stable keys, and alternative tools, giving agents enough context to decide when and how to call seal_admit.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are already meaningful. The description adds useful reinforcement about key stability and conflict behavior, but action and args remain at the same level of detail as the schema, so the value added beyond schema is modest.

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 clearly states the tool's core purpose: 'Claim the right to run an irreversible action exactly once.' It distinguishes this admission action from the preferred seal_propose flow and frames it as a pre-execution claim rather than the effect itself.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit usage guidance: prefer seal_propose when available, use only when your own code owns the effect, and always pass a stable key for money-class actions. This is actionable direction beyond the schema.

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