get_task_contextFull task context: task metadata, stages with status and weight, active blockers, linked artefacts (constraints, decisions, knowledge), recent log entries, and pinned master plan version. Assembles the full picture from PlanCrux and MemoryCrux.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | PlanCrux task ID or title |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds useful context about assembling from PlanCrux and MemoryCrux and lists what is included, but it does not disclose error handling, missing-task behavior, or performance characteristics.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds source context. No wasted words.
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?
For a read tool with an output schema, the description enumerates all major data categories returned, and clarifies the data sources. It could mention usage conditions, but overall it gives a complete picture for an agent to decide.
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?
The single parameter task_id is already described in the schema at 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond confirming it refers to PlanCrux IDs or titles.
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 states the tool provides the full task context, enumerating the specific components (task metadata, stages, blockers, artefacts, logs, master plan version). It distinguishes itself from narrower sibling get_* tools by explicitly being the comprehensive aggregator.
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?
The description implies this is the go-to tool for a complete picture of a task, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. Given many sibling tools exist, this lacks clear usage differentiation.
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.