Skip to main content
Glama

myco_brief

Produce a human-readable markdown rollup of substrate state: hunger, immune findings, note counts, primordia, plugins, and suggested next actions.

Instructions

Produce a human-facing markdown rollup of substrate state: hunger summary, immune findings, note counts by layer, recent primordia, local-plugin inventory, and a "suggested next" action list. Per L0 principle 1 ("Only For Agent"), this is the single carved exception where Myco authors human-facing prose — every other verb's output is primary material for the agent alone.

Use this when: a human operator wants to glance at substrate state (weekly / release-time check-in). For agent-to-agent reporting prefer hunger (structured) or the substrate_pulse sidecar (automatic on every verb). Do NOT use brief as an input to other verbs — it's a terminal rollup, not a structured protocol surface.

Side effects: none. Pure read. Output goes to stdout as markdown; agent / human reads, nothing is written.

Returns: { exit_code, markdown: '...' }. The markdown string is the full rollup; callers print it or surface it in UI as-is. No other fields beyond exit_code + markdown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_dirNoAbsolute path of the workspace / project whose Myco substrate this call targets. Overrides auto-discovery. When omitted, Myco resolves via MCP roots/list, then MYCO_PROJECT_DIR, then cwd — the substrate_pulse field in every response echoes which source answered.
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: no side effects, pure read, output to stdout as markdown, nothing written. It also specifies return format (exit_code + markdown) and resolution order for the 'project_dir' parameter.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with a clear hierarchy: purpose, contents, principle, usage, side effects, return. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be tightened, but no fluff.

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?

Given 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and rich sibling context, the description is nearly complete. It explains return format, resolution order, and differentiation. Minor gap: no error handling or missing substrate case. Otherwise thorough.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the parameter well. The description adds context about the resolution order and that the 'substrate_pulse' field echoes the source, which complements the schema. Baseline 3 with extra context warrants a 4.

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 produces a human-facing markdown rollup of substrate state, listing specific sections (hunger summary, immune findings, etc.). It distinguishes itself by being the sole exception for human-facing prose, contrasting with sibling tools like 'hunger' (structured) and 'substrate_pulse' (automatic).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (human operator glance, weekly/release-time check-in), when not to use (agent-to-agent reporting prefer 'hunger' or 'substrate_pulse'), and warns against using as input to other verbs. Alternative tools are named directly.

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/Battam1111/Myco'

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