Algenta MCP Server

execute_decision

Dispatch a logged decision to an external webhook and persist the execution receipt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No	Override the idempotency gate for one re-execution.
`metadata`	No	Optional key-value pairs merged into the webhook payload.
`decision_id`	Yes	Decision ID from log_decision or list_decisions.
`webhook_url`	Yes	HTTPS webhook that should receive the decision payload.
`override_safety`	No	Bypass confidence and risk-floor policy gates for this execution.
`timeout_seconds`	No	Webhook timeout in seconds.

Schema Changelog

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

First observedJul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses the core behavior (dispatch and persist) but omits details like idempotency, retries, error scenarios, and side effects of the 'override_safety' and 'force' parameters. With no annotations, the description bears full burden, yet leaves gaps.

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?

Single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. Front-loads the action and resource.

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?

Adequate for a moderate-complexity tool with six parameters and no output schema. Missing details on execution receipt format, error handling, and safety mechanisms, which leaves some gaps for the agent.

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?

All six parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds high-level context but no new meaning for each parameter beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Describes a specific action ('dispatch') on a specific resource ('logged decision') to a specific destination ('external webhook'), with clear distinction from sibling tools like log_decision (logging) and record_outcome (recording outcomes).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a logged decision) or warn about side effects like webhook delivery or persistence.

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

All Algenta MCP Server tools Inspect

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

C2.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count1/5

With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources

Need Help?