Skip to main content
Glama
DanceNitra

inspeximus

by DanceNitra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

route

Automatically determine the correct ledger operation—remember, supersede, or revert—for any statement, without requiring the old value. Handles ambiguous restatements via configurable policy.

Instructions

ONE-CALL WRITE ROUTER: hand it any utterance and it decides the right ledger operation — a new fact is remembered, a marked correction supersedes, and a revert instruction ("go back to what we had", "restore the original") is resolved against the key's version timeline and executed through the sanctioned revert channel, WITHOUT the caller naming the old value. Use it when you don't want to pick between remember/revert yourself.

The honest limit (measured): an UNMARKED restatement of a superseded value ("the region is osaka", said after the correction) is ambiguous by construction — a stale echo and a deliberate reaffirm can be byte-identical, and no classifier separates them. policy picks the failure mode: "safe" (default) never restores on an unmarked restatement; "context" restores when the preceding turn (pass it as context) shows change-awareness — forgeable, use only if that channel is trusted; "trusting" always restores; any other policy is refused. Every record it writes is stamped with this server's PROJECT scope. Returns {intent, action, key, ...} describing what was done and, when it wrote a record, the verdict on that write as remember gives it: a write a guard retired on arrival comes back blocked: true with action: "blocked", never as remembered.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNo
textYes
objectNo
policyNosafe
sourceNo
contextNo
capabilityNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.20.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / source
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Source",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that every record is stamped with PROJECT scope, that writes can be retired by a guard and returned as 'blocked', and that unknown policies are refused. It also openly states the measured ambiguity for unmarked restatements, which is unusual and useful honesty.

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 text is dense but front-loaded: a one-line summary, a use-case sentence, then a structured breakdown of limitations, policies, and returns. Each paragraph earns its place and the important warnings appear before the return description.

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 complex router with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral contract, policy semantics, and return shape. It falls slightly short of a 5 because object, source, and capability are never mentioned, so an agent still has to guess at their effect.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It meaningfully documents text, key (version timeline), policy (all values and default), and context (change-awareness channel), but it never explains object, source, or capability. This partial compensation prevents a lower score, but the omission of three optional parameters keeps it at baseline.

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 'ONE-CALL WRITE ROUTER' and states exactly what it does: it takes an utterance and decides the correct ledger operation, explicitly enumerating new facts, marked corrections, and revert instructions. It also contrasts itself with the sibling tools by saying the caller need not choose between remember/revert, which separates it from the many sibling operations.

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?

It directly says 'Use it when you don't want to pick between remember/revert yourself,' giving a crisp when-to-use rule. It also provides policy-selection guidance ('safe', 'context', 'trusting') and a concrete caution about unmarked restatements, which tells an agent when behavior may be unreliable.

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