Show the decisions that depend on a given ground truth (its downstream cascade) — the decisions to revisit if that truth changed. Pass a truth ref as 'category.key'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| truth | Yes | a truth ref 'category.key' | |
| workspace | No | Project/workspace to scope to (defaults to this connection's workspace; isolates work streams within your account) |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only 'Show' operation and describes the navigational intent, but it does not disclose output shape, ordering, depth, or what happens for invalid/missing truth refs. Enough for a basic read tool, but not richly transparent.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first states what the tool does and why, the second gives the exact input format. No filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name, and key information 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?
This is a simple read operation with one required parameter and one optional workspace. The description explains the core outcome, the meaning of downstream cascade, and the input format. It does not describe the return structure, but for a listing/query tool this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the 'category.key' format for the truth argument, matching the schema. It adds minimal additional meaning beyond reuse of the schema's parameter description.
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?
Description states a specific verb ('Show'), a specific resource ('decisions that depend on a given ground truth'), and a distinctive behavior ('downstream cascade'). It clearly differentiates from the sibling 'wyrm_decision_upstream' by emphasizing the downstream direction and the use case of revisiting decisions if a truth changed.
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?
Gives clear when-to-use context: when you need decisions affected by a ground truth change, i.e. the downstream cascade. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but 'downstream cascade' and the purpose statement effectively signal the correct scenario versus upstream tracing.
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 tools have heavily overlapping purposes: wyrm_all_quests vs wyrm_quest_list, wyrm_decision_downstream vs wyrm_decision_trace, and wyrm_recall vs wyrm_search are near-duplicates in behavior. wyrm_capture also overlaps with wyrm_remember, wyrm_truth_set, wyrm_quest_add, and wyrm_decided_because, making it hard for an agent to reliably pick the right tool.
Most names share the wyrm_ prefix and many follow a resource-action pattern like truth_set, quest_list, and failure_record. However, the pattern is broken by names like wyrm_all_quests, wyrm_decided_because, wyrm_context_build, wyrm_remember, and wyrm_capture, mixing noun-first, verb-first, and non-patterned names.
At 31 tools this is above the heavy threshold, and several tools appear redundant or mergeable, such as wyrm_all_quests/quest_list, decision_trace/downstream, capture/remember, and context_build/session_prime. The breadth is real, but the count feels inflated by overlapping entry points rather than distinct capabilities.
The tool surface covers core lifecycles well: quests have add/claim/update/complete/release, failures have record/check/list/resolve, decisions have record/trace/invalidate, and the vault has full get/put/list/delete. The main gaps are the lack of delete/update for memory artifacts and ground truths, and no explicit way to remove stale artifacts.
