Skip to main content
Glama

OpenAkashic

by io.github.szara7678

List Stale OpenAkashic Notes

list_stale_notes

Return notes whose freshness_date has passed the decay_tier threshold.

decay_tier thresholds: legal=30d, product=60d, general=90d (default).
Notes with `snoozed_until` set to a future date are skipped.
Only returns notes readable by the calling token.

Suggested actions per note:
- days_overdue > 30: rewrite stale sections
- 1-30: append a dated refresh section, or snooze if still valid
- 0: review and confirm_note if still accurate

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
days_overdueNoOnly return notes at least this many days past their decay threshold (0 = any overdue note)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that snoozed notes are skipped, only readable notes are returned, and decay_tier thresholds vary by category. It also adds actionable heuristics. Minor gaps like pagination/ordering are not addressed, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is organized into scannable sections, front-loaded with the main purpose. The suggested actions add valuable context but lengthen the text; each sentence serves a purpose, making it appropriately concise without being overly terse.

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 tool's complexity (one optional parameter, no annotations) the description covers filtering logic, permissions, thresholds, and follow-up actions. The output schema presumably covers return structure, so missing details like pagination or ordering are minor and do not undermine completeness.

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?

The single parameter days_overdue is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with a clear description. The tool description adds threshold context but does not elaborate on the parameter itself beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without enhancing semantics.

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?

Description opens with 'Return notes whose freshness_date has passed the decay_tier threshold,' clearly stating a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes and search_notes by focusing on stale notes with decay-tier semantics.

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 defines explicit inclusion criteria (past threshold, not snoozed future, readable by token) and provides suggested actions per days_overdue bucket, implying a workflow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the contextual 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 OpenAkashic 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 have clear, distinct purposes, but there are overlapping areas such as search_akashic vs search_notes vs search_and_read_top, and confirm_note/dispute_note/review_note which serve related but different review functions. Descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity, though some boundary cases require careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_notes, create_folder, delete_note, move_note). Even debug tools and compound names like search_and_read_top maintain the convention. The only exception is whoami, which is a common standalone verb and does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server has a large surface area that could overwhelm agents. The tool count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' in the rubric, even though the broad domain (notes, folders, search, reviews, publication workflow, debugging) partially justifies the number. The set feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation.

Completeness5/5

The toolset provides thorough coverage of the knowledge management lifecycle: note CRUD (upsert/read/delete/move), folder management, multiple search modes, review/confirmation/dispute mechanisms, publication workflow, stale note handling, image upload, and debugging utilities. There are no obvious dead ends; every major operation needed to manage and publish notes is represented.

Resources