Skip to main content
Glama

What this app can see

access_status
Read-only

Check what the current app can see in shared memory and why items are hidden, so you can verify per-app access levels.

Instructions

Use this when the user asks what this app can see in their memory, or why something is hidden from it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "access_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds no behavioral detail: it does not say whether the result is a static permission summary, a per-item explanation, or how detailed the output is. It functions purely as a trigger phrase rather than disclosing what happens on invocation.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the usage trigger is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument diagnostic tool, though it is essentially all trigger and no substance about the result.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what this returns — and it doesn't say. For a no-parameter diagnostic tool the safety side is covered by annotations, but the shape of the answer (a list of accessible scopes? a reason string for a hidden item?) is left entirely unspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter gaps exist to compensate for.

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?

The description names a concrete subject: the app's visibility into the user's memory and the reason something is hidden. Combined with the title 'What this app can see', an agent can tell this is a diagnostic/visibility-report tool rather than a memory operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the recall/remember/forget siblings, but the distinction is inferable from the phrasing.

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 gives a clear, explicit trigger: use when the user asks what the app can see or why something is hidden. That covers the main when-to-use case well. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., 'do not use this to actually retrieve memories — use recall'), so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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