memory_dream_statusLatest nightly dream report for this org (what changed overnight).
Returns the most recent leftover-distill + curator report, or
found=false when last night wrote nothing. The same note is a
normal semantic memory / wiki page memory_recall can find.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly says 'Returns', making clear this is a retrieval/status operation, and it discloses the no-data behavior ('found=false when last night wrote nothing'). It also explains how the note relates to memory_recall, adding useful context. It does not discuss auth or side effects, but for a zero-parameter read-only report tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences: purpose, return/edge behavior, and relationship to memory_recall. Each sentence adds distinct value, no filler is present, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough to select and invoke it correctly. It covers the purpose, the found=false edge case, and the relationship to memory_recall, so no critical behavioral information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific purpose: 'Latest nightly dream report for this org (what changed overnight)' and then states the exact returned artifact: 'most recent leftover-distill + curator report'. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool memory_recall by noting the same note is a normal semantic memory/wiki page that memory_recall can find.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when to call: to get the latest overnight report, and it handles the empty case with 'found=false'. It also points to memory_recall as an alternative for retrieving the same note as semantic memory. However, it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).
The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.