Skip to main content
Glama

meetjson_state

STATE & MEMORY ENGINE: Checkpoint time machine and cross-session memory manager. Save snapshots, restore states, list saved checkpoints, or store/recall semantic memory.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "meetjson_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoState data payload to save (summary, nextGoal, completedTasks).
nameNoCheckpoint name, search query, or memory key.
actionYesAction to perform: "checkpoint_save", "checkpoint_restore", "checkpoint_list", "memory_store", "memory_recall".
contentNoMemory content string for memory_store.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions cross-session memory and a checkpoint 'time machine,' but it does not disclose whether restore overwrites current state, how long memory persists, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with an action list, and every clause contributes to identifying the tool's capabilities. There is no redundant or wasted wording.

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 multi-action state and memory tool with a nested data object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description identifies the capabilities but does not explain per-action prerequisites or state semantics. It is minimally adequate but leaves important invocation details to 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%, including an action enum and descriptions for data, name, and content. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states specific capabilities: checkpoint save/restore/list and semantic memory store/recall. It is clear what the tool does overall, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling meetjson_process.

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 lists the actions available, which implies usage for snapshots and cross-session memory, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives.

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