Turbo Quant Memory MCP Server

by Lexus2016

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

unbind_project

Removes an exact project folder binding and resets the current session if it used that binding.

Instructions

Remove an exact folder binding; reset this session if it used 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": "unbind_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No		.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real side effect: removing the binding resets the current session if that session depended on it. Beyond that it is silent on whether the operation is reversible, whether it fails on an unbound path, and whether other sessions sharing the binding are affected.

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?

One compact sentence whose primary action comes first, with the side effect after the semicolon. Nothing is wasted, though the telegraphic style leaves the conditional in "if it used it" slightly ambiguous.

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 only one optional parameter keeps complexity low. However, a state-mutating operation with no annotations and unstated failure/reversibility semantics leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether it is safe to call.

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 0% and the single `path` parameter defaults to ".", so the description must compensate; "exact folder binding" is the only signal that matching is exact rather than prefix/parent-based. That is genuine added meaning, but it does not clarify path format or what "." resolves to.

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?

Specific verb+resource pair ("Remove an exact folder binding") that an agent can distinguish from its likely counterpart, bind_project. The word "exact" also signals matching semantics, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says to reset the session "if it used it," which hints this applies only to a currently bound folder. It never states whether unbind is valid when no binding exists, nor when an agent should prefer rebinding over unbinding.

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