Skip to main content
Glama

kit-memory-demo

by io.github.PeterAtPondo

Making notes

note

Write a live operational checkpoint so other Lady Whiskerdown-connected surfaces can pick up the thread. Use at start, diagnosis, pivot, blocker, commit, verification, and resume. Use kind=handoff only for session end, topic change, substantial completed work, or long-session restart points.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOperational checkpoint type. Defaults to checkpoint.
tagsNoExtra comma-separated tags.
titleYesShort imperative — what is happening right now. e.g. 'drafting WIP schema', 'blocked on a decision about cadence', 'resuming after lunch'.
collabNoCollaboration slug to scope this WIP, e.g. 'studio-conductor-v1'. Writes a collab:<slug> tag.
contentYesThe scribble. Be concrete: what state are you in, what's next, what's loaded in working memory. A colleague who walks up mid-thread should be able to pick up from this.
projectNoProject scope, if applicable. Omit for cross-project.
surfaceNoWhich surface you're on: 'claude-code', 'codex', 'forest', 'ollama', etc. Defaults to this server's detected surface; auto-tagged so cross-surface readers know the source.
session_idNoSession id to attach this checkpoint to. Defaults to this MCP process session.
supersedesNoCheckpoint id of a prior WIP entry this replaces. Optional — accumulation is fine without it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Short imperative — what is happening right now. e.g. 'drafting WIP schema', 'blocked on Peter's call about cadence', 'resuming after lunch'."New value: +"Short imperative — what is happening right now. e.g. 'drafting WIP schema', 'blocked on a decision about cadence', 'resuming after lunch'."
  2. Added
  3. Removed
  4. Changed10 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / collab / description
      Added value: +"Collaboration slug to scope this WIP, e.g. 'studio-conductor-v1'. Writes a collab:<slug> tag."
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"Concrete note: current state, what changed, what is next."New value: +"The scribble. Be concrete: what state are you in, what's next, what's loaded in working memory. A colleague who walks up mid-thread should be able to pick up from this."
    • changedInput schema / properties / kind / description
      Previous value: -"Defaults to checkpoint."New value: +"Operational checkpoint type. Defaults to checkpoint."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Project scope, if applicable. Omit for cross-project."
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_id / description
      Added value: +"Session id to attach this checkpoint to. Defaults to this MCP process session."
    • addedInput schema / properties / supersedes / description
      Added value: +"Checkpoint id of a prior WIP entry this replaces. Optional — accumulation is fine without it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / surface / description
      Previous value: -"The client/surface writing this, e.g. cursor, vscode-copilot, claude-code."New value: +"Which surface you're on: 'claude-code', 'codex', 'forest', 'ollama', etc. Defaults to this server's detected surface; auto-tagged so cross-surface readers know the source."
    • changedInput schema / properties / tags / description
      Previous value: -"Comma-separated extra tags."New value: +"Extra comma-separated tags."
    • changedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Previous value: -"Short label for the checkpoint."New value: +"Short imperative — what is happening right now. e.g. 'drafting WIP schema', 'blocked on Peter's call about cadence', 'resuming after lunch'."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "title",
-  "content",
-  "surface"
-]New value: +[
+  "title",
+  "content"
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only a title in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers useful context: the tool writes a live shared checkpoint visible to other surfaces. It also constrains the handoff kind to specific situations, which clarifies behavior beyond the enum. It does not discuss persistence details, retention, or auth, but for a simple note-writing tool the disclosed behaviors suffice.

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, no filler, and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence establishes what the tool does, and the second adds precise usage constraints. 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?

The description covers the tool's core behavior, when to use it, and the critical handoff constraint. With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description could go further on what happens after a note is written, but the input schema documents the parameters well and the operational context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is met by the schema itself. The description adds value by giving semantic guidance for the kind parameter, notably restricting handoff usage to specific scenarios. It also ties checkpoint kinds to operational lifecycle moments, which helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Write a live operational checkpoint' that other surfaces can pick up. It clearly indicates the tool's purpose and scope, and the list of lifecycle moments (start, diagnosis, pivot, blocker, etc.) adds specificity. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like capture, remember, or commit, but the 'operational checkpoint' framing is distinctive enough.

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 provides concrete when-to-use direction: 'Use at start, diagnosis, pivot, blocker, commit, verification, and resume.' It also gives an explicit exclusion for kind=handoff, limiting it to session end, topic change, substantial completed work, or long-session restart points. It does not explicitly name alternatives among sibling tools, but the situational guidance is strong.

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

All kit-memory-demo 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

Most tools have distinct purposes like listing areas, capturing drafts, committing memories, and searching. However, the 'note' and 'handoff' tools overlap significantly because 'note' can be used with kind=handoff for the same scenarios that 'handoff' is designed for, potentially confusing an agent on which to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are all single-word, lowercase, and descriptive. Most are verbs (capture, commit, focus, etc.), but 'areas' and 'presence' are nouns, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall, the pattern is simple and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools covering listing, capturing, committing, searching, retrieving, and setting context, the count is well-scoped for a memory/knowledge management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose and fits within the domain.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface lacks update and delete operations for memories, which are essential for a complete lifecycle. There is no way to modify or remove committed memories, and no tool to list all memories (only semantic search). This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures.

Resources