Skip to main content
Glama
DanceNitra

inspeximus

by DanceNitra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

route

Routes any utterance to the correct memory operation: remembers new facts, applies marked corrections, and executes reverts against the version timeline.

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The honest limit (measured): an UNMARKED restatement of a superseded value ("the region is osaka", said after the correction) is ambiguous by construction — a stale echo and a deliberate reaffirm can be byte-identical, and no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. Returns {intent, action, key, ...} describing what was done.

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It states that this is a write operation, that reverts go through the 'sanctioned revert channel', that unmarked restatements are ambiguous by construction, and how each policy value resolves that ambiguity. It also discloses the return shape.

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 longer than average because the behavior is nuanced, but it is front-loaded with the core one-call routing purpose before caveats. Each sentence, including the policy and honest-limit paragraphs, adds non-redundant information; the all-caps header is the only stylistic overreach.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a strong behavioral model: what actions occur, the ambiguity failure mode, policy semantics, and the return payload. It is not fully complete because object, source, and capability remain unexplained and there are no examples, but an agent can safely invoke it using the default 'safe' policy.

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 compensate. It gives meaningful semantics for text, key, policy, and context, but three optional parameters (object, source, capability) are never explained. Thus it compensates substantially but not completely for the 7-parameter schema.

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 specific verb-plus-resource statement ('WRITE ROUTER... decides the right ledger operation') and enumerates concrete behaviors: remembering new facts, applying marked corrections, and resolving revert instructions. It differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as the alternative to manually choosing between remember and revert.

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?

It provides a clear trigger ('Use it when you don't want to pick between remember/revert yourself') and names the sibling tools as alternatives. It also gives conditional guidance on the policy parameter, including when the 'context' policy should only be used ('use only if that channel is trusted'). However, it does not explicitly say when not to use the tool, such as when the caller already knows the exact operation to invoke.

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