Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

nudgeonly_receipt_bridge

Builds a deterministic worker receipt request or WakePass escalation candidate from a verified painpoint, without writes or ownership decisions.

Instructions

Turn a verified NudgeOnly painpoint into a tiny worker receipt request or WakePass escalation candidate. Deterministic bridge only: no writes, no ownership decision, no completion state.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nudgeonly_receipt_bridge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nowNoOptional ISO timestamp used for deterministic TTL checks.
ownerNoOptional existing owner evidence. The bridge does not invent or decide owners.
targetNoOptional human target label such as PR #705 or a dispatch ID.
workerNoOptional worker override when a trusted lane already named one.
contextNoOptional local context. Keep it small and non-secret.
source_idNoOptional upstream event, dispatch, PR, issue, or wake identifier.
ack_statusNoOptional ACK status such as missing, stale, received, or blocked.
created_atNoOptional ISO timestamp for the source handoff or request.
event_textNoSource event, blocker, handoff, or state-card text. Keep it small and non-secret.
source_urlNoOptional upstream source URL.
ttl_minutesNoMinutes before missing ACK/proof becomes an escalation request. Default: 60.
nudge_resultNoOptional output from nudgeonly_api.
proof_statusNoOptional proof status such as missing, present, stale, or blocked.
nudge_trace_idNoOptional trace_id from nudgeonly_api.
painpoint_typeNostale_ack, duplicate_wake, unclear_owner, noisy_thread, missing_proof, or none.
owner_last_seen_atNoOptional ISO timestamp for the current owner's last real check-in. Past TTL is treated as an expired ownership lease.
painpoint_detectedNoWhether a painpoint was detected by trusted evidence or nudgeonly_api.
owner_silent_minutesNoOptional owner silence age in minutes. Past TTL is treated as an expired ownership lease.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.11
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_last_seen_at
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional ISO timestamp for the current owner's last real check-in. Past TTL is treated as an expired ownership lease.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_silent_minutes
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional owner silence age in minutes. Past TTL is treated as an expired ownership lease.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Addedv0.1.9
  3. Removed
  4. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful negatives ('no writes, no ownership decision, no completion state'), which is genuinely useful boundary information, but it omits the selection logic between receipt request and escalation candidate and says nothing about output shape or failure behavior.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero filler; what the tool produces comes first and the behavioral caveats follow immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 18-parameter, all-optional, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is thin. It covers purpose and boundaries but leaves the agent without guidance on how the TTL/ack/proof fields drive receipt-vs-escalation output, which is the tool's core decision.

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% with 18 well-documented parameters including enums-in-text for painpoint_type and proof_status, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already documented.

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 transformation ('turn a verified NudgeOnly painpoint into a worker receipt request or WakePass escalation candidate'), naming both the input and the two possible outputs. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like nudgeonly_api, nudgeonly_policy, or igniteonly_receipt_consumer, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. 'Deterministic bridge only' is a constraint, not a routing rule. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over nudgeonly_api or the receipt consumer sibling.

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