Sharpwave

brain_review

Apply an FSRS-6 spaced-repetition review to a knowledge node, updating stability, retrievability, and calibration based on recall quality.

Instructions

Apply an FSRS-6 spaced-repetition review to a node. Updates stability, retrievability, and SIGMA calibration.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>",
      "quality": "<quality>"
    },
    "name": "brain_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`node_id`	Yes	ID of the node to review
`quality`	Yes	Recall quality: 0=blackout, 1=incorrect, 2=incorrect+familiar, 3=hard, 4=correct, 5=perfect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It accurately discloses that the tool mutates state by updating metrics, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and what it updates, which is sufficient given the lack of output schema. However, it could mention whether a return value or confirmation is provided. Sibling tools are diverse, and this description provides enough context to differentiate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the quality scale or node_id format. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'apply', the resource 'node', and the specific updates (stability, retrievability, SIGMA calibration). It distinguishes from siblings like brain_query and brain_write.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for spaced-repetition review but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like brain_forget or brain_supersede. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server