Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
compaction-mcp

compaction-mcp

by Ink01101011
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Track files for re-hydration

files_track

Mark files for automatic re-reading from disk on each compaction, ensuring agents use current file content without manual refresh.

Instructions

Mark files to silently re-read from disk on every compaction.

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": {
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "files_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathsYes
sessionIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 burden. It discloses that marking causes silent re-reads on every compaction, a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, or scope of the 'mark' operation.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool, the description covers the core action but leaves ambiguities around the optional sessionId parameter and potential return values. Given no output schema, more detail on behavior would improve completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not describe 'paths' or 'sessionId' explicitly. 'paths' can be inferred from 'files', but 'sessionId' is unexplained, leaving a semantic gap.

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 uses the verb 'mark' with resource 'files' and specifies the behavior 'silently re-read from disk on every compaction', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like files_untrack or files_rehydrate which imply opposite or immediate actions.

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 when files should be refreshed during compaction, but does not explicitly mention alternatives like files_untrack or exclusions. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit when-to-use 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