Skip to main content
Glama

observe

Reopen a settled memory for review when new evidence contradicts it, without overwriting the current record. Flags the discrepancy for a steward to resolve, so contradictory observations are not blindly trusted or ignored.

Instructions

READ-PATH review trigger — the mirror of a write-time hold-for-review. Feed it an OBSERVATION (evidence, NOT an authoritative write) that CONTRADICTS a settled memory: a different value for key, or object="" for a value-obscuring revert ("go back to what we had", names no value). Instead of silently trusting or ignoring it, this REOPENS that settled record for review. A NAMED contradiction (a different value) reopens only once it is CORROBORATED, so a lone stray restatement stays an echo and does not reopen: support (a list of the distinct grounds the observation rests on) is what corroboration counts, a restatement whose grounds were already seen is an echo, and it takes >= reopen_corroboration distinct novel grounds. A VALUE-OBSCURING revert (object="") reopens on FIRST sight: it names no value, so there is nothing a second observation could corroborate or echo, and the only safe outcome is a steward's decision. The record stays current meanwhile; nothing is restored until resolve_reopened says so. observe() NEVER supersedes or writes — it only flags; a steward closes the review with resolve_reopened(). Use it for contradicting evidence you don't want to act on blindly. Returns {reopened, key, pending, need, surfaced_prior, review_id}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
textYes
objectNo
supportNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.20.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that observe never writes, that the record stays current until a steward resolves the review, that named contradictions need corroboration while value-obscuring reverts reopen immediately, and that support grounds determine whether an observation is an echo.

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 long but every sentence earns its place given the nuanced reopening semantics. It front-loads the core identity as a read-path review trigger, then layers corroboration rules, non-destructive behavior, and return shape without fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is semantically complex and has no annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers purpose, behavioral side effects, parameter semantics, corroboration rules, follow-up action, and the return contract. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call it and what inputs to provide.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to every parameter. It explains key as the settled memory being contradicted, text as the observation/evidence, object="" as the value-obscuring revert case, and support as the list of distinct corroborating grounds. This substantially compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: observe is a read-path review trigger that reopens a settled memory for review when given contradicting evidence. It also distinguishes itself from write tools by explicitly saying it NEVER supersedes or writes and that a steward closes the review with resolve_reopened().

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it for contradicting evidence you don't want to act on blindly.' It also explains the non-destructive context and points to resolve_reopened() as the follow-up. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as remember, revert, or contradictions.

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