Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Jarvis Markdown MCP

Jarvis Markdown MCP

by ash25082003
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

start_work

Start a work session with an objective and optional completion criteria, then append a daily summary to your persistent Markdown memory.

Instructions

Start a simple active work session and append a daily summary.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "objective": "<objective>"
    },
    "name": "start_work"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryNo
objectiveYes
definition_of_doneNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose important behavioral traits like whether it modifies state, requires authentication, or what side effects occur (e.g., does it create a file? does it track time?). The phrase 'start a simple active work session' is too vague.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It does not effectively convey the tool's purpose or usage.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no output schema, three undocumented parameters, and no annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not mention return values, side effects, or how the tool integrates with the workflow.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain any of the parameters (summary, objective, definition_of_done), leaving the agent to infer from names only.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'start a simple active work session and append a daily summary', which gives a general idea but is vague. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'log_progress' or 'finish_work', and the phrase 'append a daily summary' is ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'log_progress' or 'finish_work'. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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