Skip to main content
Glama
CronusL-1141

AI Team OS

by CronusL-1141
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

task_memo_add

Add a memo record to a task for tracking progress, recording decisions, or marking issues. Optionally replace a prior memo and attribute the entry to an agent.

Instructions

Add a memo record to a task — for tracking progress, recording decisions, marking issues.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authorNoYour agent name (sub-agents: the OS name given at start). The server links this task to the agent of that name in the current session for usage attribution; keep the default "leader" only in the leader session.leader
contentYesMemo content
task_idYesTask ID
memo_typeNoType, one of "progress" / "decision" / "issue" / "summary"progress
supersedesNoOptional memo ID this entry replaces; the old memo is marked invalid (Zep 失效语义，不删除)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.15.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / author / description
      Previous value: -"Author name, default \"leader\""New value: +"Your agent name (sub-agents: the OS name given at start).\nThe server links this task to the agent of that name in the\ncurrent session for usage attribution; keep the default \"leader\"\nonly in the leader session."
    • addedInput schema / properties / memo_type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "progress",
+  "decision",
+  "issue",
+  "summary"
+]
  2. First observedv1.9.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 behavioral burden. 'Add' correctly conveys an append-only, non-destructive write, but the description says nothing about the invalidation semantics of supersedes, permission/attribution requirements for author, or any side effects — leaving clear gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating the action first and the purpose after the em-dash. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, for a write tool with no annotations, the description omits behavioral context such as supersedes invalidation and author attribution that an agent would benefit from before invoking.

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 all five parameters including memo_type and the supersedes invalidation semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a memo record to a task') and clarifies the intended use cases. The read counterpart task_memo_read makes the add/read split inferable, but the description never names an alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The clause 'for tracking progress, recording decisions, marking issues' implies when the tool is appropriate and loosely maps to the memo_type enum, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to sibling tools such as task_memo_read.

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