Skip to main content
Glama

ToolRouter

by io.github.Humanleap

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral side effect beyond the annotations: 'Knowledge you add here will be available to all future tool calls.' It also explains the retrieval-benefit framing of the MemPalace hierarchy, giving the agent a useful mental model of persistence and organization.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action, and the second adds the key consequence and optional organization. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter create tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the core effect, persistence across future calls, and the purpose of the optional hierarchy. It does not discuss return values or duplicate handling, but the absence of an output schema and the rich input schema make this adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, which would normally justify a baseline of 3. However, the description adds semantic value by grouping wing/room/hall into a hierarchy and explaining their benefit for 'sharper retrieval', which goes slightly beyond the schema's individual property descriptions.

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 states 'Create a new brain page' with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like brain_update or brain_delete. The optional wing/room/hall hierarchy is mentioned without muddying the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear this tool is for adding new knowledge, and the sentence about future tool calls signals why an agent would choose it over a query or update tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by clear resource prefixes (account_, brain_, connector_, credential_, file_, job_, key_), and most actions have distinct purposes. A few boundaries overlap—brain_admin's lint action duplicates brain_lint, and account_preferences/setup/switch could momentarily confuse—but the descriptions resolve most ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is resource_verb for actions (file_read, job_cancel, key_create) and resource_noun for state views (credits_balance, brain_settings, account_preferences), which is readable. However, exceptions like discover, use_tool, top_up_credits, and feedback_request_tool break the pattern, and the set is not consistently verb_noun.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is well beyond the comfortable range; even though prefixes organize them, the agent faces a large selection surface with many narrowly scoped tools. A more consolidated set with action-based subcommands would be easier to navigate.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered end-to-end: account setup and billing, connector and credential management, file CRUD, job polling, key lifecycle, brain knowledge management, and catalogue discovery/execution. Gaps are minor—outfit/persona/product/scene are list-only, connectors lack an update operation, and there is no explicit single-page brain get—but agents can generally work around them.

Resources