ausca_get_invocationRead the authoritative durable state, output commitment, and receipt reference for one invocation without creating a new purchase or retry identity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invocation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / $defs / ReceiptReference / properties / public_urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Unguessable public verification page for the privacy-bounded hash-only proof. It reveals the receipt digest, service, public price, and completion time, but not input bytes, output bytes, or their content digests.",
+ "format": "uri",
+ "maxLength": 2048,
+ "pattern": "^https://[^?#]+/r/[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing exactly which state is authoritative and by explicitly ruling out side effects ('without creating a new purchase or retry identity'), which helps an agent understand observable behavior beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the verb, object, and key constraint with no redundant wording. Every phrase contributes either to purpose or to side-effect clarification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a one-parameter schema, rich annotations, an output schema, and a clear statement of authoritative state contents, nothing essential is missing. The description is appropriately small for the low complexity and does not need to repeat return-value details already present in the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description coverage, so the description must carry semantic weight. It links invocation_id to 'one invocation' but otherwise leaves identifier semantics to the schema's name and pattern, providing only partial compensation for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read'), identifies a precise resource (authoritative durable state, output commitment, receipt reference), and scopes it to a single invocation. The phrase 'without creating a new purchase or retry identity' helps distinguish it from purchase/retry siblings like ausca_prepare_invocation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly frames the tool as the read/state-inspection path for a single invocation, which is the context an agent needs to choose it over mutating siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a clearly separate operation within its domain: inbox read/list/attachment/status/delete are all distinct, browser connect/status/close are unambiguous, and offer/invocation tools each have unique responsibilities. Descriptions reinforce the boundaries, so an agent should not struggle to select the right tool.
Naming is divided into two patterns: resource-first names like ausca_agent_inbox_read and ausca_browser_session_close, versus verb-first names like ausca_get_invocation and ausca_search_offers. Within the inbox and browser groups, endings mix nouns (messages, status, attachment) and verbs (delete, read, connect), making the convention inconsistent across the set.
13 tools is well within the ideal range for a multi-domain server, and each tool covers a meaningful operation without redundancy. The count supports inbox, browser session, and offer/invocation workflows without feeling bloated or sparse.
The inbox and browser-session clusters cover their core lifecycles well, and the offer/invocation cluster supports search, detail, preparation, state read, and cancellation. The main gap is the lack of an explicit submit/execute invocation tool, though invocation submission may be intentionally externalized; this is a minor workaround rather than a fatal dead end.