COA Goldfish MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between 'recall' and 'search_history' (both involve searching memory), and 'remember' and 'checkpoint' (both store information, though with different scopes). Descriptions help clarify the differences, but an agent might occasionally confuse these pairs.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structures (e.g., create_todo_list, search_history, update_todo). There are no deviations in naming style, making the set predictable and easy to parse.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a session management and productivity server. Each tool serves a specific function in tracking, recalling, and organizing work, with no apparent redundancy or missing essential operations for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core session management workflows comprehensively, including saving (checkpoint), recalling (recall, search_history), organizing (create_todo_list, update_todo, view_todos), and summarizing (summarize_session, timeline). A minor gap is the lack of a tool to delete or archive old sessions or TODOs, but agents can work around this.
Average 3.3/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'mark tasks done' which implies mutation, but doesn't address permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens when multiple parameters conflict. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a mutation tool with multiple parameters.
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 appropriately concise with two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides a usage suggestion. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of update vs. add operations.
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?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., when to use 'newTask' vs. 'status'), doesn't mention the 'delete' parameter at all, and provides no information about return values or error conditions. The description should do more given the tool's complexity.
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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'task status' and 'new tasks' which loosely map to 'status' and 'newTask' parameters, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's already in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('update task status', 'add new tasks') and resources ('existing lists'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_todo_list' or 'view_todos', which would require more specific differentiation.
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?
The description provides minimal usage guidance with the phrase 'as you work' suggesting context, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, no when-not-to-use warnings, and no alternatives among sibling tools. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use this versus 'create_todo_list' for adding tasks or 'view_todos' for checking status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'save current progress' and 'session tracking,' which implies data persistence, but doesn't specify where checkpoints are stored, their retention policy, or whether they're reversible. It hints at accumulation ('accumulates in session') but lacks details on how checkpoints relate to each other. For a tool with mutation implications and no annotations, this is insufficient.
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 appropriately concise with three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage advice and parameter guidance. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).
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?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but misses key behavioral details like storage mechanism, error handling, or what 'create' actually does (e.g., returns a checkpoint ID). It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that saves state.
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 schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value: it notes 'description' is required and lists 'context like files, branch, highlights' as optional examples, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a checkpoint to save current progress.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('checkpoint'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'restore_session' or 'search_history' that might involve checkpoints. The mention of 'crash-safe development' adds useful context about the primary use case.
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 description provides some usage guidance: 'Use frequently for crash-safe development' suggests when to use it, and 'Required: description only' clarifies the minimal requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., vs. 'remember' or 'summarize_session'). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced memory recall' and 'fuzzy search support,' which hints at functionality, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what 'memories' are (e.g., notes, tasks, sessions), how results are returned (format, ordering), whether there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, the second explains the two modes, and the third provides a usage example. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating features from use cases.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'memories' entail, result format) and doesn't leverage sibling context to clarify differentiation. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for effective agent use.
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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the tool can 'search' (mapping to the 'query' parameter) or 'show recent memories' (hinting at default behavior without 'query'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Enhanced memory recall with fuzzy search support. Can search or just show recent memories.' It specifies the verb ('recall') and resource ('memories'), and the example question ('what did I work on yesterday?') provides helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_history' or 'timeline', which likely have overlapping functionality.
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 description provides implied usage guidance: 'Perfect for "what did I work on yesterday?" questions' suggests it's for retrieving recent personal work memories. It mentions two modes (search vs. show recent) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_history' or 'timeline', nor does it outline exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions grouping behavior ('grouped by date and workspace') but doesn't disclose other traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'work sessions' entail. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this leaves 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?
The description is appropriately sized with three concise sentences. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and output details. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a read-only tool with good schema coverage. It covers purpose and usage but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. It's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency.
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 schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the output structure ('grouped by date and workspace'), but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'workspace' interacts with 'scope'). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show timeline of work sessions' with specific context about what it displays ('checkpoints grouped by date and workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'checkpoint' (individual) and 'search_history' (search-focused), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'summarize_session' which might overlap in showing activity.
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 description provides implied usage guidelines: 'Perfect for standups and understanding recent activity across projects' suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., vs. 'search_history' for filtering or 'summarize_session' for summaries) and doesn't specify when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the summary is 'AI-condensed,' it doesn't describe what this means in practice (e.g., format, length, or how the AI processes the data). It also omits important behavioral traits such as whether this operation is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose ('Create AI-condensed summary of session or recent work'), then immediately provides practical use cases. Every sentence earns its place by adding value—the first defines the action, and the second gives context for application. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and usage context well, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, side effects) that are crucial since there's no output schema or annotations. For a summary tool, users need to know what the summary looks like, but this isn't addressed. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in providing a full understanding.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the 'depth' options further or provide examples for 'since'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create AI-condensed summary of session or recent work.' It specifies the verb ('Create AI-condensed summary') and resource ('session or recent work'), and provides concrete use cases ('what did I accomplish today?' or 'understanding long sessions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'timeline' or 'search_history' which might also provide session-related information.
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 description implies usage through example scenarios ('Perfect for "what did I accomplish today?" or understanding long sessions'), giving some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'timeline' or 'search_history', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is helpful but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'viewing' and 'checking current status,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, making it efficient and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to be fully complete, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('listId' and 'showCompleted'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'View active TODO lists and their progress.' It specifies the verb ('view') and resource ('TODO lists'), and adds scope ('active'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'timeline' or 'search_history' that might also involve viewing task-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 description provides implied usage with 'Perfect for checking current status,' which suggests when to use it (for status checks). However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timeline' or 'search_history,' nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites, keeping it at a basic level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool restores session state after specific events ('/clear or break') and describes default behavior and a use case for 'full' depth. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether restoration overwrites current state), error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, then adds usage notes in two efficient sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like what 'restore' entails operationally, potential impacts, or return values. For a tool that modifies session state, more context would be helpful, but it meets minimum viability given the clear parameter schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior ('Default shows last checkpoint + highlights') and providing a practical example for using 'depth: "full"', which gives context beyond the enum descriptions. Since parameters are optional and well-covered, this earns a score above the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Restore session state after /clear or break.' It specifies the verb ('restore') and resource ('session state'), and mentions the triggering conditions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'checkpoint' or 'recall', which might have overlapping functionality.
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 description provides some usage context: 'Default shows last checkpoint + highlights' and suggests using 'depth: "full" for complete session replay when returning after days away.' This implies when to use different depth levels, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'recall' or 'search_history', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fuzzy matching' and searching across checkpoints, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of results with details). For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant 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?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second gives a concrete example, and the third clarifies scope. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by merging the second and third points.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and error handling. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed for effective agent use, though it's minimally viable.
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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the query is for work-related topics (e.g., 'auth bug') but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search work history with fuzzy matching') and resource ('work history'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'timeline' or 'summarize_session' by emphasizing fuzzy search across checkpoints. The example question further clarifies its use case for finding past work.
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 description implies usage for finding relevant past work with fuzzy matching, as shown in the example question, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recall' or 'timeline'. It provides context but no clear exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the list is 'tied to current session' which adds useful context about persistence/scope, but doesn't describe what 'create' actually does operationally - whether it requires permissions, how items are stored, if there are limits, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text or redundancy.
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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage context but lacks important behavioral details about what 'create' entails operationally. The session-tied aspect is helpful, but more completeness would be expected for a mutation tool.
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 schema already documents all 3 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('Create TODO list') and resource ('tied to current session'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_todo' or 'view_todos' beyond mentioning creation context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use ('when user mentions multiple tasks or planning work'), giving practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'update_todo' for modifying existing lists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions storage 'in current session' and TTL behavior (implied by ttlHours parameter), but doesn't disclose whether this is ephemeral vs persistent storage, permission requirements, or how memories are retrieved. For a storage tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste - the first states the core purpose, the second provides crucial sibling differentiation. Every word earns its place in this efficiently structured description.
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?
For a storage tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks behavioral context about storage persistence, retrieval mechanisms, or error conditions. It's minimally viable but has clear 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Store a quick thought or note') and resource ('in current session'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'checkpoint' tool for detailed checkpoints. This provides precise differentiation from alternatives.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Store a quick thought or note') and when to use an alternative ('For detailed checkpoints use checkpoint tool instead'), providing clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coa-goldfish-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anortham/coa-goldfish-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anortham/coa-goldfish-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![coa-goldfish-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anortham/coa-goldfish-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/anortham/coa-goldfish-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/anortham/coa-goldfish-mcp'

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