List stored ground truths, optionally filtered by category and/or workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core read-only behavior via 'List' and mentions optional filtering, but it does not state the workspace default scoping behavior, the response shape, or category matching semantics. The description is not misleading, but it leaves several behavioral details unspoken.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the filter options are stated compactly at the end. Every word earns its place for a tool of this simplicity.
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 low-complexity tool with no required parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally viable: an agent can call it with no arguments or with filters. However, it omits the default workspace behavior and does not describe what the returned list looks like, and category semantics remain underspecified. A bit more context would materially improve correct invocation.
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 schema documents 'workspace' well, but 'category' is only a bare string with no description. The tool description adds the useful meaning that both parameters are optional filters and can be combined ('and/or workspace'). It does not define acceptable category values or exact-match behavior, so parameter semantics are only partially enriched beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('stored ground truths'), and identifies the optional filters: category and workspace. This clearly distinguishes it from write-like siblings such as wyrm_truth_set and from other list tools that target different resources. Even without a title, an agent can tell exactly what this tool does.
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 use case is implied: call this tool when you need to enumerate ground truths, optionally narrowed by category or workspace. However, it gives no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives such as wyrm_recall, wyrm_search, or wyrm_vault_list, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice among siblings.
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.
