Skip to main content
Glama

pending

Count open tasks, active anti-patterns, notes, handoffs, and diagrams in a scope, or page through their headers. Filter by type, domain, offset, or pinned to see what still needs action.

Instructions

What is still open in a scope: counts per category, or one category's headers.

Without type: {"categories": [{"type", "count"}, ...]} for task, anti_pattern, handoff, note and diagram, in that order, leaving out the empty ones, plus "pinned" -- the same shape, counting the memories a person pinned as mandatory reading -- when any pin is in scope. A pinned memory still counts in its category. With type: {"type", "total", "items", "next_offset"} -- one page of headers (uid, title, domain, est_tokens; a task adds progress {done, total} and doing, the keys of its items in progress), newest first, a task by its latest item update. Open a header with get_memory(uid). next_offset is absent on the last page.

pinned=true narrows the page to the pins of that type, and also accepts checkpoint and reasoning. Every pin listed is read with get_memory(uid) before acting, none skipped.

Pending means: a task that is open; an active anti_pattern, handoff or note that is not contradicted; an active diagram.

domain covers its subdomains and what is cross-listed there; empty is the whole project. A pin is in scope when it is global, or when the memory's domain or one of its also paths is the asked domain or above it; the whole project counts global pins only. limit is 1 to 50. Any other type is an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNo
limitNo
domainNo
offsetNo
pinnedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it defines 'pending' semantics, specifies output shapes for both modes, describes pagination ('next_offset' absent on last page), states limit range (1-50), and notes that invalid types produce an error. It does not explicitly state read-only nature or side effects, but the query nature is clear.

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 dense and long, but given the absence of schema descriptions and output schema, most content is necessary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the paragraph style could be more structurally organized (e.g., bullet points).

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 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers output formats, parameter meanings, scope rules, pagination, and error behavior. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling listing tools.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explains every parameter: type (empty vs. with type), limit (1-50), domain (covers subdomains and cross-listing, empty means whole project), offset (pagination via next_offset), and pinned (narrows to pins, accepts checkpoint/reasoning). This is thorough and leaves no ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific purpose: counting open items per category or listing headers for one category. It is clear what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search, list_by_domain, or list_recent.

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?

Provides follow-up guidance ('Open a header with get_memory(uid)'), but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search or list_by_domain. The agent must infer appropriate usage contexts.

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