Skip to main content
Glama
Edlineas

AIVectorMemory

by Edlineas

track

Manage issues with create, update, archive, delete, and list actions. Track problem descriptions, investigation, root cause, and solution.

Instructions

问题跟踪:create/update/archive/delete/list 五个 action。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNo日期 YYYY-MM-DD
briefNolist 时是否只返回摘要(issue_id/title/status/date),默认 true。需要详情用 issue_id 查单条
limitNolist 时返回条数上限,默认 50
notesNo注意事项
titleNo问题标题(create)
actionYes
statusNo
contentNo问题描述(create 时必填,简述问题现象和背景)
issue_idNo问题编号(即 list 返回的 issue_id),update/archive/delete/list 单条查询时使用
solutionNo解决方案
parent_idNo父问题 ID(create,可选,默认 0)
feature_idNo关联功能标识
root_causeNo根本原因
descriptionNo问题描述
test_resultNo自测结果
files_changedNo修改文件清单(JSON 数组)
investigationNo排查过程(逐步记录)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error handling. For a tool with multiple mutating actions, this is insufficient.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 17 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or pagination behavior (e.g., 'list' returns abstract by default), the description is too minimal to provide complete context for effective use.

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 high (88%), so the schema already explains most parameters. The tool description adds minimal additional meaning beyond listing action names, but does not enhance understanding of how parameters interact.

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 explicitly states the tool is for issue tracking and lists the five supported actions (create, update, archive, delete, list), making the purpose clear and distinct from siblings like 'task' or 'remember'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when this tool should be used versus alternatives such as 'task' or 'recall'. The description only lists actions without contextual usage hints.

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

Install Server

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/Edlineas/aivectormemory'

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