Skip to main content
Glama
arctop

Seamless

by arctop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Local

usage_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reports a read-only, machine-wide roll-up of memory, note, session, and task counts, retrieval totals, top-injected memories, pending gardener proposals, and events by kind.

Instructions

Report a roll-up of activity: memory/note/session/task counts, retrieval totals with the most-injected memories, pending gardener proposals, and events by kind. Every count is machine-wide and identical for every caller; only the named memory lists (topInjected, topUtility) are fenced, so memories this session may not read under project isolation are dropped from them and those lists can come back shorter than the counts imply. Read-only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description discloses genuinely non-obvious behavior: counts are machine-wide and identical for every caller, while only topInjected/topUtility are fenced by project isolation, so those lists can legitimately come back shorter than the counts imply. That is exactly the kind of discrepancy an agent would otherwise misread as a bug.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents before the fencing caveat. The middle sentence is dense but every clause (machine-wide, fenced lists, shorter-than-implied) carries distinct meaning; the trailing "Read-only." is the only mild redundancy given readOnlyHint.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what comes back and it largely does, naming the count groups, the top-injected/topUtility lists, and the events-by-kind breakdown. It stops short of describing the response's shape or ordering, but for a read-only roll-up it is close to sufficient.

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% and the single session parameter is documented in detail there (formats, defaulting, stateless-connection guidance). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 for schema-does-the-work applies.

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 names a specific verb-plus-resource ("Report a roll-up of activity") and then enumerates exactly what is rolled up: memory/note/session/task counts, retrieval totals, pending gardener proposals, and events by kind. That enumeration makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like recall, tasks_list, or gardener_proposals, which each cover only one slice of this report.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the overview/dashboard call you make instead of stitching together recall + tasks_list + gardener_proposals. But there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use X instead when you need per-item detail' routing, and no prerequisites are given beyond the session parameter's own schema text.

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