Skip to main content
Glama

mitosis

by ai.mitosislabs

Sources this memory could connect

cortex_connectable_sources
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which sources this memory could connect but hasn't yet — each with what it would make answerable, routing tags, and a connect link for the user. This is what explains a cortex_ask result that came back empty or off-topic: the source holding that answer is listed here rather than connected. Data connected into this memory stays searchable, cited, and available across every agent and session the user works in.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the output (what each source would make answerable, routing tags, connect links) and the broader behavior that connected data remains searchable and available across sessions. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is three sentences, each earning its place: what it lists, why it matters (explains cortex_ask results), and the broader data persistence context. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and key output fields. It lacks an exact output structure specification, but given the low complexity and clear annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output and purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool lists sources a memory could connect to but hasn't yet, including what each source would make answerable, routing tags, and connect links. It also differentiates from sibling tools like cortex_ask by explaining that it helps diagnose empty or off-topic results.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly mentions when to use this tool: when a cortex_ask result comes back empty or off-topic, pointing to this tool as the explanation. This provides concrete usage context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives.

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

All mitosis 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between cortex_ask, cortex_recall, and search, all of which retrieve from the user's memory. cortex_recall explicitly describes itself as a subset of cortex_ask, and search's description is nearly identical to cortex_ask's core function, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly. Other tools are more distinct, but this triple overlap creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming is inconsistent: memory tools are split between a cortex_* prefix (ask, recall, manifest, status, etc.) and bare fetch/search, with no clear rule for which gets the prefix. Within cortex_*, some are verbs (ask, recall, remember) and some are nouns (manifest, status, connectable_sources), and platform tools use get_/list_/search_ prefixes, resulting in a mixed and unpredictable naming pattern.

Tool Count4/5

13 tools is a reasonable number for a server covering both memory operations and platform information. However, the presence of three overlapping retrieval tools (cortex_ask, cortex_recall, search) slightly inflates the count, suggesting some redundancy rather than each tool earning a unique place.

Completeness4/5

The server covers core workflows: reading memory (ask, search, recall, fetch, manifest), writing memory (remember, ingest_conversation), checking health (status), and accessing platform info (get_platform_status, get_pricing, list_skills, search_docs). Minor gaps include no explicit update/delete for individual memories and no direct tool to connect new sources (only listings of connectable ones), but these are often user-driven actions.

Resources