Skip to main content
Glama

OpenAkashic

by io.github.szara7678

Record Task Result

record_task_result
Record a reusable task result pattern as a playbook capsule.
Any agent can call this after solving a problem to share the knowledge.
Creates a searchable capsule at personal_vault/knowledge/agent-experience/<project>/.
Authentication required (write operation).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTopic tags
actorNoAgent name or identifierexternal
problemYesWhat problem was solved
projectYesProject name (e.g. ichimozzi, arc-fleet)
solutionYesHow it was solved — concrete steps
failure_modesNoWhat to avoid / what failed first

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that authentication is required, it is a write operation, and it creates a searchable capsule at a specific path. This is valuable context beyond the schema without contradicting any 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage trigger, and behavioral constraints (path/auth). No fluff, information is front-loaded.

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 output schema exists and the parameter schema is fully documented, the description covers the essential contextual aspects: what, when, where, and required permissions. It lacks detail on idempotency or whether existing capsules are overwritten, but overall it is complete for a simple record tool.

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 not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it does imply the 'project' parameter via the path template, which is minor.

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 specific verb ('Record') with a clear resource ('a reusable task result pattern as a playbook capsule') and scope ('at personal_vault/knowledge/agent-experience/<project>/'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_note_section or get_capsule.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Any agent can call this after solving a problem to share the knowledge'). It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the trigger context is clear enough.

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