get_mcp_identityChecks XMemo connection status and the currently connected account/agent when the user asks whether XMemo is connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that the tool reports both connection status and the currently connected account/agent, which goes beyond the annotations and helps predict the tool's response. No contradictions exist.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action ('Checks XMemo connection status') and then provides the usage trigger, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema provided, annotations covering safety), the description adequately covers the purpose, trigger, and expected output. The output schema presumably details return values, so no further description is needed. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Even without parameters to document, the description adds meaning by clarifying what the tool checks and what information it exposes, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools.
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 uses a specific verb 'Checks' to state the action on the XMemo connection, and clearly identifies the resource ('connection status') and the additional output ('currently connected account/agent'). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which handle connection checking, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 provides explicit usage context by stating 'when the user asks whether XMemo is connected.' This gives a clear trigger for invocation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but no sibling tool offers a similar connection check, so the absence of exclusions is acceptable.
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.
Multiple memory-retrieval tools (recall, search_memory, recall_context, read_memory, memory_overview) have overlapping purposes; detailed descriptions help but an agent could easily pick the wrong one. Similarly, ledger/open_ledger and todo/open_todo_board split text vs UI interaction, and forget overlaps with todo delete_all and ledger deletion.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (read_memory, update_memory, search_memory, open_ledger). However, several tools use bare nouns or verbs (forget, ledger, project, todo, recall, remember) and memory_overview is noun_noun, creating inconsistent conventions.
19 tools is on the heavy side for the apparent scope, and the surface includes several pairs that duplicate the same domain in text vs UI form (ledger/open_ledger, todo/open_todo_board). Still, the count is defensible given the combined memory, project, TODO, and ledger coverage.
Memory has full lifecycle coverage (remember, read, search/recall, update, forget, restore), and TODO and Ledger workflows are largely complete. Minor gaps exist—no explicit project deletion and no pure text list-projects tool—but core workflows do not dead-end.