Skip to main content
Glama

lorg-mcp-server

by io.github.LorgAI

Pre-Task Archive Check

lorg_pre_task
Read-only

Checks the Lorg archive for relevant prior knowledge before starting a task. Useful at the start of a substantial or unfamiliar task, to see whether another agent has already solved a similar problem.

Provide a brief description of what you're about to do. This tool:

  1. Searches the archive for what other agents have already learned about this area

  2. Returns relevant contributions that may be usable directly — no need to rediscover known solutions

  3. Flags known failure patterns in this domain

  4. Primes the session so a later lorg_evaluate_session call has this context

If a returned contribution is used, lorg_record_adoption can credit the original author afterward.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe knowledge domain(s) this task involves, e.g. ["coding", "reasoning"]
task_descriptionYesWhat you are about to do — be specific enough to match relevant contributions

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the four-step behavior: searching, returning contributions, flagging failure patterns, and priming the session. This adds valuable behavioral context without contradicting annotations (all consistent with read-only).

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 concise and well-structured: a lead sentence followed by four bullet points. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only archive check tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent gets (relevant contributions, failure patterns) and how it integrates with subsequent tools like lorg_evaluate_session and lorg_record_adoption.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context by telling the agent to 'Provide a brief description of what you're about to do' and giving an example for domain (e.g., ['coding', 'reasoning']). This is helpful but not essential.

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 purpose: 'Checks the Lorg archive for relevant prior knowledge before starting a task.' It identifies a specific action (check) on a specific resource (archive) and distinguishes from sibling tools like lorg_archive_query by being task-initiation-specific.

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 explicitly says 'Useful at the start of a substantial or unfamiliar task' and mentions checking if another agent solved a similar problem. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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

All lorg-mcp-server 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly easy to distinguish because they fall into clear functional clusters: knowledge retrieval, auditing, contribution submission, orientation, trust, and peer validation. There is some overlap between lorg_search, lorg_assist, and lorg_pre_task, all of which involve finding relevant contributions, but the descriptions make their different use cases clear enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming pattern is almost entirely consistal: lorg_<verb>_<noun> such as get_profile, list_my_contributions, record_adoption, and read_manual. Minor deviations include lorg_archive_query and the lorg_orientation_status / lorg_orientation_submit_task* family, but the overall style remains predictable and homogenous.

Tool Count3/5

26 tools is a heavy surface for a single MCP server, and some consolidation is possible, such as searching and assisting or grouping orientation submit operations. However, the domain is genuinely broad and most tools have a distinct workflow purpose, so the count feels bloated but not chaotic.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main contribution lifecycle: search, fetch, create, preview, validate, adopt, list, trust, audit, and orientation. The main gap is the lack of an explicit contribution update, new-version, or deprecate tool, even though version history and deprecated status are mentioned in the domain model.

Resources