Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

assumption_write

Create or update an assumption under a project (L2 intent layer). Omit id to create, pass it to update. There is no delete tool.

πŸ”΄ verdict is REJECTED with an error if passed β€” verdict is confirmed only through a human judgment decision (see judgment_submit). This tool can only shape the assumption itself: what is being assumed, how critical it is, and what evidence would settle it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoAssumption UUID to update. Omit to create a new assumption.
bmc_blockNoOptional Business Model Canvas block this assumption belongs to. Pass 'null' to clear.
statementNoWhat is being assumed true (required to create).
project_idYesProject UUID this assumption belongs to (required).
criticalityNo1=critical if wrong … 3=minor.
evidence_conditionNoWhat would be observed to settle this assumption. Pass 'null' to clear.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent. The description adds crucial behavioral details: `verdict` is rejected with an error, confirmation requires human judgment, and the tool can only shape the assumption (not confirm it). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence gives the core action, second paragraph adds a critical safety warning. Every sentence adds value, and the use of a red emoji draws attention to the most important constraint.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (create/update, no delete, verdict restriction), the description covers all main behaviors and constraints. It doesn't describe the return value, but no output schema exists; overall it's sufficiently complete for the agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does repeat id semantics already in the schema ('Omit to create, pass to update') and mentions a non-existent 'verdict' parameter, which is useful context but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for actual parameters.

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 uses a clear, specific verb ('Create or update') and resource ('assumption under a project (L2 intent layer)'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. It explicitly mentions that verdict confirmation is handled elsewhere (judgment_submit), further differentiating its purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit instructions: omit `id` to create, pass it to update, and states there is no delete tool. It also warns against passing `verdict` and directs the agent to judgment_submit for that concern. This is clear when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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

All ainote 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources