Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ToolRouter

by io.github.Humanleap
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Add to brain

brain_add

Create a new brain page. Knowledge you add here will be available to all future tool calls. Optional wing/room/hall organise the page in the MemPalace hierarchy for sharper retrieval.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "brain_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hallNoOptional. One of "fact", "event", "discovery", "preference", "advice". Defaults to "fact".
roomNoOptional. Sub-area within the wing (e.g. "databases", "deploy"). Defaults to "untagged".
tagsNoTags for categorisation
wingNoOptional. Top-level area (e.g. "engineering", "family", "general"). Auto-classified if omitted.
scopeNoVisibility scope. Defaults to personal.
titleYesPage title
contentYesPage content (markdown)
load_tierNoOptional. L0 = operator identity (rare), L1 = always-loaded critical fact, L2 = default on-demand, L3 = cold archive. Omit to default to L2.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: persisted knowledge becomes available to all future tool calls, which communicates the global side effect of a write. It doesn't discuss duplicate handling or error cases, keeping it below 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the hierarchy detail. Every sentence earns its place by adding persistence and organisational context.

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?

For a write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, persistence effect, and the organisational model adequately. Minor gaps around edit-vs-create routing remain, but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters including enums for scope and load_tier. The description only gestures at wing/room/hall as organisational and adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the specific verb 'Create' and resource 'brain page', telling an agent exactly what operation it performs. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like brain_update or brain_admin, but the create-vs-modify distinction is reasonably inferable.

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?

It implies when to use ('knowledge you add here') but offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives such as brain_update for editing existing pages. The usage context is present but left to inference rather than spelled out.

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

All ToolRouter 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