Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

baton

by io.github.vinsenzo83
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

baton_memory_put

API key로 본문을 암호화해 세션 간 기억을 저장한다. 서버 검색은 제목·태그만 사용한다.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "api_key": "<api_key>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "baton_memory_put"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
tagsNo
titleYes
api_keyYes
ttl_hoursNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Description discloses encryption and cross-session storage, and that search is limited to title and tags. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden. It lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or the role of ttl_hours.

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 concise sentences, no fluff. First sentence defines the action, second adds behavioral constraint. Efficient use of words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too brief. It does not cover return values, error scenarios, or usage examples, leaving significant gaps for a moderately complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains api_key, title, and tags in context but omits ttl_hours entirely and does not clarify body format. Inadequate for the parameter count.

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?

Description clearly states the action: encrypt body with API key and store memory across sessions. It distinguishes the tool inherently as a put operation among memory siblings, but does not explicitly differentiate from baton_memory_get, baton_memory_search, or baton_memory_delete.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Description mentions that server search uses only title and tags, implying these should be provided meaningfully. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All baton toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources