Skip to main content
Glama
AVIDS2

memorix

by AVIDS2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Memory Autopilot Project Context

memorix_project_context

Build a compact Memory Autopilot brief for the current coding task, including start-here files, reliable memories, stale cautions, and verification hints. Schedule Code Memory refresh when needed.

Instructions

Build a compact Memory Autopilot brief for the current coding task. Schedules Code Memory refresh when needed, includes Start here files, reliable code-bound memories, stale/suspect cautions, and verification hints. Use this at the start of a new coding turn or after switching tasks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNoCurrent coding task or question
agentNoOptional target agent for compatible workflow selection.
limitNoReserved for future source limits; current prompt stays compact by default.
formatNoOutput format. "prompt" is agent-ready; "summary" is human-readable; "receipt" is bounded JSON; "json" is detailed diagnostics.prompt
taskIdNoOptional task continuity ledger id to include in the brief
refreshNoCode Memory refresh policy. auto refreshes only when missing or stale.auto

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.9.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / taskId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional task continuity ledger id to include in the brief",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.7.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional target agent for compatible workflow selection.",
+  "enum": [
+    "windsurf",
+    "cursor",
+    "claude-code",
+    "codex",
+    "copilot",
+    "antigravity",
+    "gemini-cli",
+    "openclaw",
+    "hermes",
+    "omp",
+    "kiro",
+    "opencode",
+    "trae"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"Output format. \"prompt\" is agent-ready; \"summary\" is human-readable; \"json\" is structured."New value: +"Output format. \"prompt\" is agent-ready; \"summary\" is human-readable; \"receipt\" is bounded JSON; \"json\" is detailed diagnostics."
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "prompt",
-  "summary",
-  "json"
-]New value: +[
+  "prompt",
+  "summary",
+  "json",
+  "receipt"
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a notable side effect ('Schedules Code Memory refresh when needed') and the contents of the brief, which is valuable, but it does not clarify whether the tool mutates memory state, what the returned object looks like, or any limitations of the 'brief' output.

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 three tight sentences with the main action first, followed by a compact list of what the brief contains and a direct usage trigger. Every sentence carries information and there is no boilerplate.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a useful picture of contents and use time, but it omits the return contract/side-effect caveats and any relationship to sibling context tools. It is adequate for invocation but leaves some decision-making to the agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all six parameters. The description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the brief is for the 'current coding task', which aligns with the task parameter; it earns the baseline but no more.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Build') and names a concrete resource ('compact Memory Autopilot brief'), and it lists distinctive inclusions like 'Start here files' and 'reliable code-bound memories.' This makes its purpose clear, though it never names a sibling tool such as memorix_context_pack, so differentiation relies on function rather than explicit contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit usage window ('Use this at the start of a new coding turn or after switching tasks'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools