Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

RelayLink

by ai.relaylink
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Brief on a project

project_brief
Read-onlyIdempotent

A deterministic brief on a RelayLink project, built only from what is actually shared on it — never a summary this server invents. Sections: scope (the recorded outcome and definition of done), decisions (adopted, attributed), needs_me (what is waiting on the user), risks (blocked, overdue or unanswered — observed, never a status somebody typed), changes (needs since, an ISO instant, to report what moved after it), next (open or in-progress work). Omit sections for all of them. Reads only, and writes nothing — asking for a brief is never itself an event on the project. This is shared with everybody on the project: every member can read it, so use these tools only for work the user means to be visible to the people they have put on this project. A private note, task or preference that is only the user's own is the notebook's (notebook_*) instead, and a bare "add a task" may be meant for another connected app — if more than one destination is plausible and the user has not said which, ask once and stay with the answer.

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>"
    },
    "name": "project_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows per section before it says there is more (default 10, max 30).
sinceNoReport changes after this ISO instant (2026-09-01T00:00Z). Required only if sections includes "changes".
projectYesThe project's name or its project_id.
sectionsNoWhich sections to include: scope, decisions, needs_me, risks, changes, next. Omit for all.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real value beyond them: risks are 'observed, never a status somebody typed', asking for a brief is never itself an event on the project, and the shared-visibility permission model. It stops short of describing output shape or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and section list, with routing guidance trailing. It is one dense paragraph and the section parentheticals are heavy, but every sentence carries operational information — nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by defining each returned section and its source of truth. Combined with visibility rules and the since parameter's dependency on the 'changes' section, an agent has enough to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds semantics the schema's flat enum list does not: what each section actually contains, that 'changes' is driven by an ISO instant, and that omitting sections returns all of them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('a deterministic brief on a RelayLink project') and enumerates exactly what the brief contains (scope, decisions, needs_me, risks, changes, next). It also tells the agent what it is not — not a server-invented summary, and explicitly distinct from the notebook_* tools.

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?

Gives an explicit visibility rule ('shared with everybody on the project — use only for work the user means to be visible'), routes private material to notebook_*, and handles the ambiguous 'add a task' case with a concrete instruction to ask once. This is when/when-not plus named alternatives.

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

All RelayLink 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