get_knowledge_gapsList gap receipts (coverage + enumeration) for the tenant, filterable by topic and recency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since_days | No | ||
| gap_subtype | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or return format specifics. The phrase 'gap receipts' is undefined, and there is no mention of how filtering or pagination behaves beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that gets to the point quickly. However, it includes an inaccurate reference to 'topic' which detracts from its precision. Despite that, it is appropriately brief and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no required fields, and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not define what a 'gap receipt' is, when to use this tool, or how the parameters affect results. With an output schema present, some completeness is provided, but the description alone is not enough to guide an agent effectively, especially with many related sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'filterable by topic and recency', but 'topic' does not correspond to any parameter in the schema (only limit, since_days, and gap_subtype). It does not explain limit or since_days, and only partially connects 'coverage + enumeration' to gap_subtype. This adds confusion rather than clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing gap receipts, with a parenthetical defining them as 'coverage + enumeration'. This gives a specific action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'assess_coverage' or 'fill_gap', and the mention of 'topic' does not map to any schema parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning excluded scenarios or related tools that might be more appropriate. The sibling list includes 'assess_coverage' and 'fill_gap', but no differentiation is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.