Skip to main content
Glama

EchoRelay

by dev.echorelay

get_dlq_entry

Read-only

Get DLQ entries by entry id ({ms}-{seq}, as returned by list_dlq's id) or by requestId. requestId is the durable handle — stable across a retry, unlike id, which changes every time an entry is replayed and later dead-letters again — and returns every fanned-out target's entry for that inbound request (one request can fan out to N targets, and several may dead-letter); id returns at most one. Each entry includes configVersion (the published config that authorised the delivery; 0 means unstamped). Errors if nothing matches this project — purged, retried, or discarded entries age out the same as any other.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoDead-letter entry id, e.g. "1717930000000-0" (as returned by list_dlq). Changes on every retry — prefer requestId to track an entry across replays.
requestIdNoThe UUID the relay returned in its 202, or from list_requests / list_dlq rows. Stable across retries. Returns every fanned-out target's DLQ entry for this request. Provide exactly one of id / requestId.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Redis stream id, e.g. \"1717930000000-0\" (as returned by list_dlq). Changes on every retry — prefer requestId to track an entry across replays."New value: +"Dead-letter entry id, e.g. \"1717930000000-0\" (as returned by list_dlq). Changes on every retry — prefer requestId to track an entry across replays."
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / oneOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "id"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "requestId"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Redis stream id, e.g. \"1717930000000-0\"."New value: +"Redis stream id, e.g. \"1717930000000-0\" (as returned by list_dlq). Changes on every retry — prefer requestId to track an entry across replays."
    • addedInput schema / properties / requestId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The UUID the relay returned in its 202, or from list_requests / list_dlq rows. Stable across retries. Returns every fanned-out target's DLQ entry for this request. Provide exactly one of id / requestId.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "id"
-]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The text adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the provided readOnlyHint: id is ephemeral, requestId is durable across retries, fan-out may produce multiple entries, and each entry includes configVersion with 0 meaning unstamped. It also discloses error and aging semantics. Some gaps remain on authentication or explicit response shape, but the annotations already cover the read-only safety profile.

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 dense but well-organized: it leads with the action, then explained an important ambiguity (id vs requestId), and ends with error semantics. There is no filler; every clause earns its place, though a minor simplification could improve readability.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description does what is needed: it introduces the return entry contents (configVersion), clarifies fan-cut multiplicity, and states not-found behavior. It does not enumerate all entry fields, but for a read-one tool with rich annotations and schema coverage, the provided context is sufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, already explaining id and requestId formats, mutuality, retry stability, and fan-out behavior. The description adds value via the `{ms}-{seq}` pattern and the configVersion mention, but it mostly restates what the schema and oneOf constraint already clarify.

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 by clearly defining a specific action ('Get DLQ entries') and names its two distinct access modes (entry id or requestId). It grounds id in list_dlq's output, which distinguishes this tool from the list and other DLQ siblings without opening schemas.

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, actionable guidance: use requestId for stable tracking across replays, and use id when you have the exact entry id from list_dlq. It notes that id changes on every replay and that requestId captures every fanned-out target, which directly informs tool selection.

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

All EchoRelay toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct resources and the descriptions are unusually explicit, but the billing cluster (change_plan/cancel_subscription and the many add-on actions) plus the preview/diff tools overlap and could cause mis-selection. config_diff, dry_run_endpoint, and preview_line_draft all read as 'preview what will change' at first glance despite different scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, set_*, update_*, delete_*. It is only held back by a few naming outliers such as config_diff and default_endpoint_template, which break the verb-first convention.

Tool Count1/5

78 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface, even accounting for the broad management/relay domain. Such a large surface will overwhelm model context and make tool selection materially harder; this would be better split into focused servers for configuration, data-plane operations, and billing.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very thorough: projects, lines, endpoints, credentials, keys, configs/drafts, DLQ, requests, metrics, audit, team, and billing are all represented. Only minor gaps exist, such as no direct single-line get/update and the intentional inability to widen the outbound allowlist or lift archive protection via API.

Resources