Skip to main content
Glama

PCD (Portable Context Deck)

Write Signal

write_signal

Record a condition needing review or action beyond this session. Current work belongs in topology; platform feedback uses write_feedback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refsNoOptional 1:many rich pointers, e.g. [{kind:'knowledge_record', id:'…'}, {kind:'file', path:'…'}].
titleNoScannable one-liner (max 80 chars) — the handle boot renders by; the AI triages on title + severity and reads content only when it works the signal. Omit and it's derived from content (fine for machine-generated signals). Reject-over-cap, never truncated.
actionNoDefault 'write'. 'validate': pre-send check — runs the write path's enum + char-cap validation on the candidate WITHOUT writing; returns { valid, missing_required[], over_cap: [{field, len, cap}], not_checked? }. State checks (rate cap, dedup, handle resolution) still run at write time.
handleYesYour active deck handle — the agent surfacing the finding
contentYesThe full finding (max 1000 chars) — fetched via get_signals when the signal is picked up, not shown at boot. Put structured detail in refs, not here.
outcomeNoRequired for check signals — pass or fail.
contractNoHelp mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed.
severityYesYour honest estimate — drives how signals are ranked when surfaced at boot.
dedup_keyNoOptional writer-composed key (e.g. 'drift:knowledge:slug-X'). A repeat on an open signal bumps occurrence_count instead of inserting.
assigned_toNoOptional deck-handle routing label — which deck should pick this signal up (e.g. a specialist raises a finding the container deck fixes, then routes back with assigned_to). Advisory: soft-validated against the container's deck handles, mismatch warns in the envelope, never rejects. Omit for unrouted (container-context surface).
signal_typeYesfinding: something noticed (default). check: structural assertion (requires outcome). proposition: a suggested action. event: an external thing happened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / contract / description
      Previous value: -"Help mode — pass true to receive this tool's full _meta.contract (all variants) with NO operation performed."New value: +"Help mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. The description adds the useful trait that the signal persists 'beyond this session' and is intended for later review/action, but it does not explain write-time behavior such as dedup, validation, or rate checks; those are left to the parameter schema.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first states the tool's purpose and persistence boundary, and the second handles the two most likely confusable alternatives. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description itself is brief, but the input schema is exceptionally detailed and the description covers purpose, persistence, and sibling routing. It is slightly shy of a 5 because return/envelope behavior for the default write path is not mentioned anywhere, though the validate action's return contract is described in the schema.

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% and each parameter (title cap, content cap, action modes, dedup_key, assigned_to, signal_type, etc.) is already explained in detail in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 with a specific verb–object pair: 'Record a condition needing review or action beyond this session,' making it clear the tool persists a signal for later triage. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming write_feedback for platform feedback and topology for current work, so an agent can tell it apart from write_feedback and patch_topology 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 when-not guidance: current work belongs in topology and platform feedback should use write_feedback. This directly tells the agent to prefer write_signal only for cross-session review/action items and routes other cases to the right sibling.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources