Skip to main content
Glama

check_sources

Check whether the sources behind stored memories changed or disappeared, returning per-record statuses (fresh, drifted, orphaned, unresolved, uncheckable) to guide re-reading before serving.

Instructions

CAUSAL staleness: has the SOURCE each memory came from CHANGED, or gone? Returns a report, not a boolean.

Decay elsewhere in this library is temporal — a half-life on age — and age cannot tell a fact that has been true for five years from one that rotted in a week. This asks the question that can: did the thing this memory is about actually change? Per record: FRESH (source resolves, still hashes the same), DRIFTED (resolves, content changed — re-read it, don't serve it blind), ORPHANED (an addressable source that is gone), UNRESOLVED_HERE (a relative or non-file locator the default resolver could not address from this working directory — read it with resolution_base, it is not evidence of absence), UNCHECKABLE (no fingerprint: no source, or a source naming the WRITER rather than a document).

READ UNCHECKABLE FIRST. Fingerprints are only taken when remember(source={"doc": <path>}) points at a file that existed at write time, so on most stores this is the large number and the honest denominator. ok is false whenever NOTHING was checkable, and the report says so — zero drifted over zero checked is the same sentence as a clean store. Measured on our own deployment before shipping this: 210,544 records, 98.3% carrying a source, 0.01% carrying one that resolves to anything you could fetch again.

Scoped to the bound tenant/project when there is one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Install Server

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure—and it does so thoroughly. It enumerates every report category (FRESH, DRIFTED, ORPHANED, UNRESOLVED_HERE, UNCHECKABLE), explains the `ok` semantics, notes the fingerprinting limitation, and scopes the tool to the bound tenant/project. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with zero structured annotations.

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 long and dense, but nearly every sentence contributes meaning: purpose, category definitions, caveats, and real-world expectations. It is front-loaded with the key question and report type, then expands into necessary nuance. The deployment statistics are borderline extra, but they help calibrate agent expectations, so the length is justified.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain the return format, edge cases, and failure modes—and it does. It covers all report categories, the meaning of `ok`, the fingerprint caveat, how to interpret UNRESOLVED_HERE, and tenant scoping. An agent has enough information to call this tool and interpret its result correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, so there are no parameter semantics that need clarification. The description still references `resolution_base` and `remember(source=...)`, which adds useful context even though no formal parameters exist. Per the rubric, baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 opens with a precise statement of what the tool does: it checks whether the SOURCE of each memory has changed or gone, and explicitly notes it returns a report, not a boolean. It clearly distinguishes this causal-staleness check from the temporal-decay approach used elsewhere in the library, so an agent can tell it apart from related staleness or verification tools.

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?

The description gives strong context for when to use the tool: when temporal age is insufficient and you need to know whether the underlying source actually changed. It contrasts this with the library's temporal half-life model, though it does not name specific sibling tools to choose instead. It also gives practical usage warnings such as reading UNCHECKABLE first and understanding when `ok` is false.

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

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/DanceNitra/inspeximus'

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