Skip to main content
Glama

aiworkhub_agent_retry_finalization

Retry finalization of a retained worker request without relaunching the provider or model. Revalidates task identity, workspace, and supervisor exit receipt before deterministic finalization.

Instructions

COORDINATOR/WRITE-GATED: retry one retained finalization request.

The provider/model is never launched again. The exact successful worker request, retained workspace, task identity and supervisor exit receipt are revalidated before deterministic validation/finalization is re-entered. A validation failure is eligible only when its durable reason is the operational validation_exec_scratch_unavailable condition; ordinary product/test failures remain non-retryable. A scope_rejected request is eligible: the re-run repeats the scope check and reaches review_ready only if the retained delta is now in scope (NF-2026-01345).

validation_lane="manager_host" is the manager's explicit opt-in for a candidate whose declared validations failed only because the sandbox validation lane cannot execute them (NF-2026-01030). It makes any validation_failed/finalize_failed request whose retained candidate seal still verifies retryable, and re-runs the SAME declared commands with the validation route forced to the host backend. All pass -> the normal finalize path to review_ready; any failure -> validation_failed again, now with host receipts. The lane is never derived from candidate output. manager_host applies only to VS Code LM adapters: its forced backend is the editor-hosted one, which never runs a native CLI route outside its OS sandbox, so a request from a CLI adapter (e.g. claude_cli) is refused up front with validation_lane_forbidden_for_adapter:<adapter> before any event write or card transition, leaving the request and card unchanged (NF-2026-01645).

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": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "aiworkhub_agent_retry_finalization"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesId of the task card that request belongs to.
request_idYesId of the retained worker request whose finalization is retried.
validation_laneNoEmpty (default) re-runs finalization normally; manager_host re-runs the declared validations on the host backend, for VS Code LM adapter requests only (other adapters are refused).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.12.67
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the retained worker request whose finalization is retried."
    • addedInput schema / properties / task_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the task card that request belongs to."
    • addedInput schema / properties / validation_lane / description
      Added value: +"Empty (default) re-runs finalization normally; manager_host re-runs the declared validations on the host backend, for VS Code LM adapter requests only (other adapters are refused)."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: it revalidates retained request/workspace/task identity, re-enters deterministic validation/finalization, refuses manager_host for non-VS Code LM adapters before event write or card transition, and specifies what happens on pass versus failure. These details are important for a write-gated retry operation and are clearly stated.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the operation and is structured around eligibility, validation_lane behavior, and adapter restriction. It is long for a three-parameter tool, but the length is mostly justified by the complex eligibility and safety rules.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, annotations, full schema coverage, and output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand when the retry is allowed, what it will re-run, and what side effects or refusals to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents request_id, task_id, and validation_lane. The description still adds meaningful semantics for validation_lane, especially its manager_host opt-in behavior, host backend force, and adapter restriction, going beyond the schema description.

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?

The first line states a specific verb and resource: retry one retained finalization request, coordinator/write-gated. It immediately distinguishes this from worker-launching retries by saying the provider/model is never launched again. The eligibility and validation-lane details make the intended operation unambiguous.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rules: ordinary product/test failures remain non-retryable, while validation_exec_scratch_unavailable and scope_rejected requests are eligible under stated conditions. It also explains the manager_host opt-in and the adapter-specific refusal path.

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