Skip to main content
Glama

chronica_create_thread

Create a new thread in Chronica to organize structured memory across sessions with time-aware context and auto-save functionality.

Instructions

新しいスレッドを作成します。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thread_nameYesスレッド名
thread_typeNoスレッドタイプ

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for 'chronica_create_thread' inside the call_tool function, which takes thread_name and thread_type as arguments and calls store.create_thread.
    elif name == "chronica_create_thread":
        thread_name = arguments.get("thread_name")
        thread_type = arguments.get("thread_type", "normal")
        
        if not thread_name:
            return [types.TextContent(
                type="text",
                text=json.dumps({"error": "validation_error", "message": "thread_name is required"}, ensure_ascii=False)
            )]
        
        if thread_type not in ["normal", "project"]:
            thread_type = "normal"
        
        thread_id = store.create_thread(thread_name, thread_type)
        return [types.TextContent(
            type="text",
            text=json.dumps({"thread_id": thread_id, "thread_name": thread_name, "thread_type": thread_type}, ensure_ascii=False)
        )]
  • The definition and input schema for the 'chronica_create_thread' tool.
    types.Tool(
        name="chronica_create_thread",
        description="新しいスレッドを作成します。",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "thread_name": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "スレッド名"
                },
                "thread_type": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "enum": ["normal", "project"],
                    "description": "スレッドタイプ"
                }
            },
            "required": ["thread_name"]
        }
    ),
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention return values (e.g., thread ID), side effects, idempotency concerns (can duplicate names be created?), or the semantic difference between 'normal' and 'project' thread types.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy. While it is extremely brief, it efficiently states the core purpose without wasting words. However, it is underspecified rather than appropriately concise given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain behavioral outcomes (what is returned upon creation?) and domain context (relationship to entries). With sibling tools indicating a thread-entry hierarchy, the single-sentence description leaves significant gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (both thread_name and thread_type are documented in the schema). The description adds no parameter-specific context, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb-resource combination (create thread) in Japanese, matching the tool name. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like chronica_save_entry (which creates content within threads) or explain what constitutes a 'thread' in this domain.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create a new thread vs. using an existing one), prerequisites (e.g., checking if thread exists), or post-creation steps (e.g., adding entries via chronica_save_entry).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Nic9dev/Chronica'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server