GravityPort

generation_record

Records a generation occurrence against an existing GravityPort asset so agents can track provenance separately from deduplicated output assets.

Instructions

Record one generation occurrence independently from the deduplicated output asset. Use this when an agent knows that a specific generation produced a saved GravityPort asset.

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": {
      "outputAssetId": "<outputAssetId>"
    },
    "name": "generation_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`model`	No
`batchId`	No
`evidence`	No
`provider`	No
`createdAt`	No
`messageId`	No
`references`	No
`userPrompt`	No
`promptStatus`	No
`outputAssetId`	Yes	Existing GravityPort asset produced by this generation.
`captureChannel`	No
`conversationId`	No
`effectivePrompt`	No
`providerAssetId`	No
`captureContextId`	No	GravityPort/local observation context. This is not a provider generation-call ID.
`verificationLevel`	No	Evidence level for this externally supplied record. provider_verified is reserved for trusted GravityPort provider integrations.
`providerResponseId`	No
`providerToolCallId`	No	Provider/runtime tool-call identifier when observed.
`providerGenerationCallId`	No	Provider generation-call identifier only when actually supplied by the provider integration.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.11Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, closed-world write, and the description adds that the record is independent of the deduplicated asset (i.e., it does not create or merge assets). It says nothing about idempotency, whether repeated recordings of the same generation are allowed, or deduplication of the records themselves.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the selection condition. No filler.

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?

For a 19-parameter, nested-object, enum-bearing write with no output schema, the description omits nearly all parameter guidance and any statement of what happens on success or on duplicate submission. Adequate for picking the tool, insufficient for invoking it correctly.

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 only 26% across 19 parameters, so the description carries the burden and supplies none of it — no explanation of verificationLevel, evidence, captureChannel, or how the provider IDs differ. Only outputAssetId is indirectly implied by the phrase 'saved GravityPort asset'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (record one generation occurrence) and explicitly distinguishes it from the deduplicated output asset it points at. An agent can tell this is a provenance-recording write, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling generation_relation_record.

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?

Gives a clear selection condition: use it when an agent knows a specific generation produced an already-saved GravityPort asset. It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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