Skip to main content
Glama
arctop

Seamless

by arctop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

gardener_split

Plan a project split by generating reviewable proposals that divide one existing project into two or more new child projects, keeping cross-platform memories in a shared parent.

Instructions

Plan a project SPLIT: divide one existing project into two or more NEW child projects, keeping cross-platform memories in a shared parent (e.g. split arctop-app into arctop-ios + arctop-android with shared arctop-mobile-apps). Use this when the user wants to break one project into several -- gardener_request points you here (via splitSource) when it detects that intent. It NEVER creates a project or moves a memory: it only creates reviewable pending proposals -- one 'split' setup proposal plus one 'reproject' per memory, all under plan 'split-'. Review with gardener_proposals, then apply each with gardener_apply (or retarget a memory first in the console). Needs an LLM chat client and a known source project slug (see project_list).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesthe project slug to split (its own memories are classified into the children/shared parent)
sessionNothe session to act as: the name session_start returned, the cc/<id> or cx/<id> on your briefing's 'Seam session' line, or a session ULID. It scopes and credits this call. Defaults to this connection's session; pass it on every call when session_start reports the connection as stateless
instructionNooptional guidance: which children, what stays shared

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.4
    • addedInput schema / properties / session
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "the session to act as: the name session_start returned, the cc/<id> or cx/<id> on your briefing's 'Seam session' line, or a session ULID. It scopes and credits this call. Defaults to this connection's session; pass it on every call when session_start reports the connection as stateless",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish write/non-destructive/non-idempotent (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it only creates reviewable pending proposals, produces one 'split' setup plus one 'reproject' per memory under plan 'split-<source>', never creates a project or moves a memory, and requires an LLM chat client plus a known source slug.

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-loads the core action and example, then the routing/behavior/requirements. Dense but every sentence carries operational content; it could be tightened slightly (the console retarget aside) but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, but the description compensates fully by describing what is produced (pending proposals under a named plan) and the required follow-up review/apply steps, plus prerequisites and the session requirement. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the call.

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 the schema carries the per-parameter burden (baseline 3). The description still adds value by pointing to project_list as the way to obtain the required source slug and by framing what instruction does ('which children, what stays shared') in workflow terms.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with concrete scope: 'divide one existing project into two or more NEW child projects, keeping cross-platform memories in a shared parent.' The worked example (arctop-app → arctop-ios + arctop-android) makes the operation unambiguous and distinguishes it from project_create ('NEVER creates a project').

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user wants to break one project into several') and how it is reached ('gardener_request points you here via splitSource'). It also names the downstream flow: review with gardener_proposals, then apply with gardener_apply — routing to the correct siblings with conditions.

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