memory_playbook_getAlias for memory_procedure_get.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Playbook name | |
| version | No | Specific version | |
| expand_skills | No | Inline composed skills |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and safety, and it does not. 'Alias for memory_procedure_get' points elsewhere but discloses no actual behavior, auth requirements, or side-effect profile.
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?
One short sentence and zero filler; the alias relationship is front-loaded and immediately actionable for an agent that can reference memory_procedure_get.
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?
Given an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the tool is callable, and the alias pointer compensates for some missing detail. Still, the description is not self-contained: it never explains the playbook/procedure domain or usage conditions.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains name, version, and expand_skills. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 identifies the tool as an alias for memory_procedure_get, which together with the 'Get' in the title conveys a retrieve-by-name operation on a memory playbook/procedure. It points to a specific sibling and is not a tautology, though it never directly states what a playbook is or that the operation is read-only.
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?
By naming memory_procedure_get as the aliased tool, the description gives the agent a clear reference for behavior and implicitly says this tool is equivalent to that sibling. It does not, however, state when to prefer this alias over the canonical tool or contrast it with memory_playbook_set and memory_playbooks_list.
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.