Assemble a COMPLETE cross-workspace briefing for a fresh agent: ground truths, open quests, active dead-ends, and recent decisions across the whole account. Broader than wyrm_session_prime (which scopes to one workspace) — use at the very start of a session or when picking up cold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| focus | No | optional topic to also pull relevant memory for |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly conveys that the tool is a read/synthesis operation ('Assemble a briefing') and lists what it will produce. It does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom or permission requirements, but the briefing framing strongly implies a non-mutating operation.
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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose, enumerates the return content, and includes the usage guidance and sibling differentiation. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must explain the shape of what is returned; it does so by listing ground truths, open quests, active dead-ends, and recent decisions. It also communicates scope and timing. The only gap is the lack of detail on result format or ordering, but the provided categories are enough for an agent to invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional 'focus' parameter, which already explains its meaning. The tool description does not add new parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema fully covers the parameter. Baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Assemble'), a clear resource ('cross-workspace briefing'), and enumerates the content types it covers. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from wyrm_session_prime, making its purpose unambiguous even among many siblings.
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 states exactly when to use it: 'at the very start of a session or when picking up cold.' It also names the narrower alternative, wyrm_session_prime, and explains why this tool is broader, giving clear when-to-use versus when-to-use-other guidance.
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.
