Skip to main content
Glama
LeandroPG19

Cuba-Memorys

by LeandroPG19
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

cuba_jornada

Track working sessions with goals and outcomes. Optionally bind a session to a project to scope reads and writes.

Instructions

Track working sessions with goals and outcomes. v0.8: optional 'project' arg binds the session to a named project (upserts in brain_projects); subsequent handlers will scope reads/writes to that project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoSession name (for start)
goalsNoSession goals (for start)
actionYesSession action
outcomeNoSession outcome (for end)
projectNov0.8: project name to bind this session to (created on first use). Omit to keep session global.
summaryNoWhat was accomplished (for end)
allow_secretNoRefused when the text looks like a live credential (token, password, URL with embedded creds). Set true only for a false match — the text is then stored verbatim, in clear, and reachable by search, export and every client.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.25.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_secret
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Refused when the text looks like a live credential (token, password, URL with embedded creds). Set true only for a false match — the text is then stored verbatim, in clear, and reachable by search, export and every client.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.18.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: the project arg upserts into brain_projects and future handlers will scope reads/writes to that project. But it says nothing about persistence, permissions, or what 'end' does to a session, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the version-specific detail. Efficient, though the 'v0.8' versioning preamble is mildly meta and could be trimmed.

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?

This is a 7-parameter, 4-action dispatch tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description never explains the actions that drive the tool. An agent must open the schema to learn that 'start', 'end', 'list' and 'current' exist and what each requires, which is a substantial completeness gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's project note largely restates what the schema description for 'project' already says ('created on first use', 'omit to keep session global'), so it adds little meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 verb+resource: 'Track working sessions with goals and outcomes.' An agent understands the domain immediately. However, it offers no differentiation from the obvious sibling memory_jornada, so an agent cannot tell from the description which of the two session-tracking tools to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the start/end/list/current lifecycle, and no routing to or away from memory_jornada. The only conditional content is about the optional 'project' arg, which is schema-level detail rather than usage 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