Skip to main content
Glama

evaluateInsight

Assess insights for long-term value using criteria like actionability, longevity, and future reference to filter out trivial details and retain meaningful knowledge.

Instructions

  Evaluate the long-term value and significance of an insight or thought based on the following criteria: 
  1. Actionability (1-10): Can this be applied to future work? Is there any information that can be used to apply this thought to future work in different contexts? Is the problem it solves clear?
  2. Longevity (1-10): Will this be relevant months or years from now?
  3. Findability (1-10): Would this be hard to rediscover if forgotten?
  4. Future Reference Value (1-10): How likely are you to need this again?
  
  Insights to ignore: 
  1. Trivial syntax details
  2. Redundant information
  

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thoughtYes
evaluationStepYes
totalStepsYes
nextStepNeededYes
actionabilityYes
longevityYes
findabilityYes
futureReferenceValueYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'evaluateInsight' tool. It casts args to EvaluateInsightArgs, computes the sum of four evaluation criteria (actionability, longevity, findability, futureReferenceValue), checks if >18, and returns a JSON response indicating value.
    case "evaluateInsight": {
      const insightArgs = args as EvaluateInsightArgs;
      const result = insightArgs.actionability + insightArgs.longevity + insightArgs.findability + insightArgs.futureReferenceValue;  
      const isValuable = result > 18;
      if (isValuable) {
        return {
            content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify({result: `This insight has significant long-term value`, ...insightArgs, isValuable}, null, 2) }],
        };
      } else {
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify({result: `This insight may not have sufficient long-term value`, ...insightArgs, isValuable}, null, 2) }],
        };
      }
    }
  • Registration of the 'evaluateInsight' tool within the getToolDefinitions() function's return array, including its name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "evaluateInsight",
      description: `
      Evaluate the long-term value and significance of an insight or thought based on the following criteria: 
      1. Actionability (1-10): Can this be applied to future work? Is there any information that can be used to apply this thought to future work in different contexts? Is the problem it solves clear?
      2. Longevity (1-10): Will this be relevant months or years from now?
      3. Findability (1-10): Would this be hard to rediscover if forgotten?
      4. Future Reference Value (1-10): How likely are you to need this again?
      
      Insights to ignore: 
      1. Trivial syntax details
      2. Redundant information
      `,
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          thought: { type: "string" },
          evaluationStep: { type: "number" },
          totalSteps: { type: "number" },
          nextStepNeeded: { type: "boolean" },
          actionability: { type: "number" },
          longevity: { type: "number" },
          findability: { type: "number" },
          futureReferenceValue: { type: "number" }
        },
        required: ["thought", "evaluationStep", "totalSteps", "nextStepNeeded", "actionability", "longevity", "findability", "futureReferenceValue"]
      },
    },
  • TypeScript interface defining the arguments for evaluateInsight, extending StickyArgs which provides the required fields.
    // Rename to EvaluateInsightArgs
    interface EvaluateInsightArgs extends StickyArgs {}
  • Base interface StickyArgs used by EvaluateInsightArgs, defining the input parameters for evaluation criteria.
    interface StickyArgs {
      thought: string;
      evaluationStep: number;
      totalSteps: number;
      nextStepNeeded: boolean;
      actionability: number;
      longevity: number;
      findability: number;
      futureReferenceValue: number;
    }
Behavior3/5

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 describes the evaluation criteria and what to ignore, which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what the tool returns (e.g., a score, summary, or error handling). For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with bullet points for criteria and insights to ignore, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the evaluation logic and exclusions well, but lacks details on parameter meanings for half the inputs and does not describe the output format. This is adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps for effective tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 8 parameters. It explains the evaluation criteria (actionability, longevity, findability, future reference value) which maps to 4 parameters, but does not clarify the semantics of 'thought', 'evaluationStep', 'totalSteps', or 'nextStepNeeded'. This leaves half the parameters undocumented, failing to fully compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate the long-term value and significance of an insight or thought based on the following criteria...' It specifies the verb (evaluate) and resource (insight/thought) with detailed criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'log' or 'write_note' which handle different operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by listing criteria for evaluation and specifying insights to ignore (e.g., 'Trivial syntax details', 'Redundant information'). This helps differentiate it from alternatives like 'log' for general logging or 'write_note' for recording information without evaluation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mikeysrecipes/mcp-notes'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server