Skip to main content
Glama
Octonove

crbro-memory

by Octonove
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Team space

crbro_space

Create, join, sync, or leave shared team memory spaces in a private Git repository, so teammates exchange project notes without sharing unrelated personal data.

Instructions

Read or write team spaces — shared memory with teammates: a private git repository holding notes about the projects you choose to share; nothing else from your brain goes near it. create starts one (name, remote, author); join clones one a teammate created; status reads your identity and spaces; sync exchanges notes now — the manual form of what crbro_boot and crbro_consolidate do alone, useful right after crbro_share (offline is a normal answer, not a failure); leave pushes pending notes, deletes the local copy and stops following its neurons (neurons untouched). Joining shares nothing: put each project in with crbro_share. create and join reply ok:false with the reason on failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoShort name, e.g. "equipo" — the same on everyone's machine. Required for create, join and leave; optional for sync (omit = every space); ignored for status.
actionYescreate = start a new space and push it; join = clone one a teammate created; status = your identity and spaces; sync = exchange notes now; leave = sync, then forget the space locally.
authorNoHow your notes are signed, e.g. "ana". Lowercase, no spaces. Required for create and join.
branchNoBranch to use (default "main"). create and join only.
remoteNoGit URL of a private repository — EMPTY for create, the same URL the creator used for join. E.g. git@github.com:acme/team-memory.git.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Previous value: -"create = start a new space and push it, join = clone one a teammate created, status = your identity and the spaces you are in."New value: +"create = start a new space and push it; join = clone one a teammate created; status = your identity and spaces; sync = exchange notes now; leave = sync, then forget the space locally."
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "create",
-  "join",
-  "status"
-]New value: +[
+  "create",
+  "join",
+  "status",
+  "sync",
+  "leave"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / branch / description
      Previous value: -"Branch to use (default \"main\")."New value: +"Branch to use (default \"main\"). create and join only."
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Short name, e.g. \"equipo\" — the same on everyone's machine. Required for create and join."New value: +"Short name, e.g. \"equipo\" — the same on everyone's machine. Required for create, join and leave; optional for sync (omit = every space); ignored for status."
  3. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations present (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description still adds real behavioral context: offline is "a normal answer, not a failure," leave pushes pending notes before deleting the local copy and leaves neurons untouched, and create/join return ok:false with a reason. It does not cover permission/authorization requirements or anything about sync's merge conflicts or partial-failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource definition, then action semantics, then the sibling relationships and failure note. Every sentence carries information, but the long em-dash-chained sentences cram several ideas together, which slightly hurts scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-action, five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what each action does, what gets created or deleted, and the failure signal. It could say more about what status/sync return and about concurrent-teammate conflicts, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; however, the description adds cross-action semantics beyond field definitions by binding parameters to actions (create needs name/remote/author; sync omits name to hit every space; status ignores it). It stops short of clarifying branch/remote edge cases, so it exceeds baseline without being exhaustive.

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 states a specific resource (team spaces = a private git repo of shared project notes) and enumerates all five actions with a verb for each: create starts, join clones, status reads identity/spaces, sync exchanges notes, leave forgets locally. It also clarifies scope ("nothing else from your brain goes near it"), so an agent can distinguish this from crbro_share or crbro_consolidate without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly routes between actions and siblings: sync is "the manual form of what crbro_boot and crbro_consolidate do alone, useful right after crbro_share," and join is qualified with "Joining shares nothing: put each project in with crbro_share." When-to-use is stated for each action plus the trap to avoid.

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