Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MemoryBrain

by ai.memorybrain
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Abrir una apuesta

open_bet

Abre una apuesta del proyecto: una hipótesis que se puede perder (la propuesta de valor, «esto va a funcionar»). Exige qué tendría que pasar, cuándo se mira y qué hará si falla.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "claim": "<claim>",
      "prediction": "<prediction>",
      "deadline": "<deadline>",
      "if_fails": "<if_fails>"
    },
    "name": "open_bet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesLo que se apuesta.
metricNoLa métrica con la que se comprueba (m1 o su nombre).
outputNoEl output que apuesta (o1).
projectYesEl proyecto (p1, p2…), de list_projects.
deadlineYesCuándo se mira, AAAA-MM-DD.
if_failsYesQué hará si falla, decidido ahora.
predictionYesQué tendría que pasar, con número si lo hay.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-nature is known; the description adds that the call is refused unless the future-check conditions are supplied, which is real context. It does not say what is created or returned (an identifier?), whether a bet can be duplicated, or how it relates to metrics and outputs referenced by name.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the concept definition, with no filler. The parenthetical illustration ("la propuesta de valor, «esto va a funcionar»") earns its place by fixing what a bet means in this domain.

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?

For a 7-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the intent and the three commitment-bearing fields but stays silent on the relationship with list_projects, define_metric and save_output that the schema references, and on what a successful call yields. Adequate but with clear gaps around the surrounding workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description restates three of them in prose ("qué tendría que pasar", "cuándo se mira", "qué hará si falla") adding the rationale that the fallback is decided now, but gives no extra syntax or format guidance beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ("Abre") plus resource ("apuesta del proyecto") and then defines the domain concept — a hypothesis that can be lost — so an agent unacquainted with the term can still act. It does not name the counterpart close_bet, so the differentiation from siblings is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description conveys that opening a bet forces commitment to a prediction, a deadline and a fallback plan, which implies the situation in which to use it. It never states when to prefer it over adjacent tools such as define_metric, save_output or close_bet, nor any preconditions (e.g. project must exist in list_projects).

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

All MemoryBrain toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources