p-e-relay

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

exists

Determine if an id is known to the relay store without fetching data. Get a definitive PRESENT, KNOWN_MISSING, or UNKNOWN status to decide whether to cite it.

Instructions

Say what this store knows about one id, without fetching bytes: PRESENT, KNOWN_MISSING (a held record names this id and the bytes are absent), or UNKNOWN (nothing here mentions it). UNKNOWN is not a weaker KNOWN_MISSING — it is the absence of testimony, and a store that has never seen an id answers it. Reads only; it deposits nothing. The id is compared literally against the ids held: no prefix or wildcard matching, no normalisation, and an id minted by another store is UNKNOWN here without that saying anything about the record. Ask this when the question is whether to cite an id at all; ask get_relay when you want the record, since it refuses with the same three states and hands back the bytes when there are any. Returns one line of text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	the id to ask about. `relay-` and four digits — e.g. relay-0033. Matched literally: nothing is padded, trimmed or normalised, so `relay-33` is a different string and answers UNKNOWN, rather than an error

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	the id asked about, as given
`state`	Yes	UNKNOWN is the absence of testimony, not a weaker KNOWN_MISSING: nothing held here mentions this id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.6Sep 18, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"a relay id as this store writes them, `relay-` and four digits — e.g. relay-0033. Any other shape is UNKNOWN rather than an error"New value: +"the id to ask about. `relay-` and four digits — e.g. relay-0033. Matched literally: nothing is padded, trimmed or normalised, so `relay-33` is a different string and answers UNKNOWN, rather than an error"

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.5Sep 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "the id asked about, as given",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "description": "UNKNOWN is the absence of testimony, not a weaker KNOWN_MISSING: nothing held here mentions this id",
+      "enum": [
+        "PRESENT",
+        "KNOWN_MISSING",
+        "UNKNOWN"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "state"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2Sep 17, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id / description

Added value: +"a relay id as this store writes them, `relay-` and four digits — e.g. relay-0033. Any other shape is UNKNOWN rather than an error"

First observedv0.1.0Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior ('Reads only; it deposits nothing'), literal/no-normalization matching, and the nuanced meaning of UNKNOWN vs KNOWN_MISSING, including cross-store semantics. It also notes the output shape ('Returns one line of text').

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 long but each sentence adds semantic value, from the three states to usage routing and return format. It is well-organized, though slightly dense and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, semantics, edge cases, when to use it, and the relationship to get_relay. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The schema already documents the relay-xxxx format and literal matching; the description reinforces no-prefix/wildcard behavior but adds little parameter-level information beyond that.

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 description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Say what this store knows about one id, without fetching bytes,' and enumerates the three result states. It explicitly contrasts with get_relay, so an agent can differentiate the tools.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool ('Ask this when the question is whether to cite an id at all') and points to the alternative ('ask get_relay when you want the record'). This is explicit routing with no inference required.

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

Deploy Server