Show conflicts
cortex_conflictsRead-only
Mostra le contraddizioni rilevate tra le memorie.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Cortex
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the read-only annotation by stating it 'shows' contradictions, implying no mutation. However, it adds no extra context beyond the annotation (e.g., whether it's safe to call frequently or if it triggers side effects). The annotation already covers read-only, so this is adequate but not enhanced.
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, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool and gets straight to the point.
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?
The tool is simple with no output schema, so the description suffices for basic understanding. However, it could clarify what constitutes a 'contradiction' (e.g., conflicting facts, temporal inconsistencies), but given the context of a memory system, this is likely implicit. The description is mostly complete.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is complete. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description provides no irrelevant parameter info, so it meets the baseline.
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 clearly states the tool's function: displaying contradictions detected between memories. This is distinct from sibling tools like cortex_recall (retrieving memories) or cortex_forget (deleting memories), making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus others. For example, it doesn't explain that it might be used after write operations to check for consistency, or how it differs from recall/search for examining memory content.
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.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Search and recall both retrieve from memory and could be confused, but the descriptions distinguish search as returning results and recall as producing a narrative synthesis. cortex_write_status and cortex_conflicts also both touch conflicts, but one is tied to a specific queued write, so agents can mostly choose correctly.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools share a cortex_ prefix and verb-like names such as write, forget, and recall, but cortex_conflicts is a noun, cortex_write_status is a verb+noun compound, and fetch/search lack the prefix. The convention is readable but not consistently applied.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools cover the memory domain without bloat. Each tool maps to a distinct operation, and the count feels well-scoped for a persistent memory server.
Completeness5/5
The surface covers the core memory lifecycle: write, search/recall, fetch by id, delete, and conflict/status inspection. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.