Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
selfos-mcp

selfos-mcp

by AmineBenaceur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

weekly_review

Generate a structured weekly review of wins, goal and habit progress, upcoming items, and reflective questions; walk through wins, then questions, then next week's focus, and optionally save it.

Instructions

Build this week's review: goals, habits, what's coming up, and the questions worth asking. Walk the user through it: wins first, then questions one at a time, then next week's focus.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "weekly_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
writeNoSave to reviews/YYYY-Www.md

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail: the review is a guided, sequential walkthrough that surfaces wins before questions and asks them one at a time. It does not say what happens when write=false (nothing persisted?) or where the underlying data comes from, leaving a gap on the persistence side.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the deliverable front-loaded and the interaction order following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-optional-param workflow tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, and sequencing adequately. Minor gap: it never clarifies whether the review is returned as content or only persisted when `write` is true.

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% and the single `write` flag is fully documented in the schema as saving to reviews/YYYY-Www.md. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build this week's review') and enumerates the contents: goals, habits, upcoming items, and reflection questions. No sibling produces a review artifact, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the interaction order — wins first, then questions one at a time, then next week's focus — which is real guidance on how to run the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., mid-week vs. end-of-week).

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