Turbo Quant Memory MCP Server

by Lexus2016

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

select_project

Selects an existing project by ID for the current connection, or resets the selection when no ID is provided. Use it to scope memory operations to the right project.

Instructions

Select an existing project by ID for this connection; omit ID to reset.

Вибирає наявний проєкт для цього підключення; без ідентифікатора скидає вибір.

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": "select_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the selection is scoped 'for this connection' and that omitting the ID clears the selection, but it says nothing about persistence, whether an invalid ID fails or silently no-ops, or whether a prior selection is replaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the entire text is duplicated in Ukrainian, roughly doubling length without adding meaning for most agents. No structural waste beyond the redundant translation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is simple with one optional param. Still, for a state-changing selection tool with zero annotation coverage, the missing error/invalid-ID and replacement semantics leave the agent guessing at edge cases.

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 0% for the single project_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain the parameter is an ID and that null/omission means reset, but adds no format details (string type, where the ID comes from), leaving a real gap at zero coverage.

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 and resource ('Select an existing project by ID for this connection'), plus the default-path behavior ('omit ID to reset'). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from plausible siblings such as bind_project or unbind_project.

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 'omit ID to reset' clause is a genuine usage rule for the optional parameter, which is more than most definitions give. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this over bind_project/unbind_project or how to discover a valid ID (list_projects is never mentioned).

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