Skip to main content
Glama
billy12151

memory-arbiter-mcp

by billy12151
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_review

Inspect shared SQLite memory read-only: overview, doctor, conflicts, history, expired, audit, entities, and workspaces. Review conflict details before judging or applying arbitration decisions.

Instructions

Read-only inspection: overview, doctor, conflicts, conflict_detail, history, expired, audit, entities, workspaces, help.

Use memory_review(view="help") for accepted fields. Inspect conflict_detail before judging a conflict so its members, value groups, revision, and apply state are visible.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
viewNohelp

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.16.5
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "memory_reviewDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Addedv0.11.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does clearly label the operation as 'read-only inspection,' which is a meaningful safety claim. Beyond that, it does not describe output shape, pagination, permissions, or side effects, leaving gaps for a tool with ten modes.

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 compact and front-loads the read-only nature and view list. The second sentence about conflict_detail is slightly orphaned without context, but overall there is little wasted text.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description covers only the read-only nature, view names, and one conflict_detail tip. It lacks guidance on what 'data' should contain per view and how this tool differs from its three siblings, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only names view values rather than describing the 'data' parameter at all. For a two-parameter tool with a free-form 'data' object, the description should explain what data expects for each view; it does not, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 'Read-only inspection' and enumerates ten view modes, which conveys the resource and scope. However, the verb is not made specific, and the sibling tools (memory, memory_govern, memory_repair) are not referenced, so the agent cannot easily tell why memory_review is distinct from those tools. Purpose is implied but not sharply defined.

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 offers one procedural guideline: inspect conflict_detail before judging a conflict, and use view='help' for accepted fields. This is helpful context for one view but does not explain when to choose memory_review over memory, memory_govern, or memory_repair, nor when each of the other nine views is appropriate.

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