Skip to main content
Glama

metacognitive_monitoring

Evaluate your knowledge, claims, and reasoning quality to identify biases and gaps, improving metacognition and decision-making.

Instructions

Self-assessment of knowledge and reasoning quality for improved metacognition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesThe overall task or problem being addressed.
stageYesThe current stage of the metacognitive process.
claimsNoA list of claims being made and assessed.
iterationYesThe iteration number of this monitoring session.
monitoringIdYesA unique identifier for this monitoring session.
previousStepsNoA record of the steps that have already been completed.
reasoningStepsNoA list of reasoning steps being assessed.
remainingStepsNoA high-level list of the steps that are yet to be taken.
toolUsageHistoryNoA log of the tools that have been used so far, along with their effectiveness.
uncertaintyAreasYesA list of areas where there is significant uncertainty.
overallConfidenceYesAn overall confidence score (0-1) in the ability to complete the task successfully.
knowledgeAssessmentNoAn assessment of the knowledge required for the task.
recommendedApproachYesThe recommended approach to address the task, given the metacognitive assessment.
nextAssessmentNeededYesA flag indicating whether another assessment is required.
suggestedAssessmentsNoA list of suggested next assessments.
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The single sentence does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization requirements, or state changes. The schema hints at introspection, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but is under-specified. For a tool with 15 parameters and nested objects, more detail is required. It is not appropriately sized and fails to front-load key information.

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 the complexity (15 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no overview of the tool's behavior, usage context, or relationship to the detailed schema. The completeness is inadequate.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter schemas; it completely ignores the parameters. Since the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it is for 'self-assessment of knowledge and reasoning quality', which gives a general purpose. However, it lacks a specific action verb (e.g., 'perform', 'conduct') and does not differentiate from siblings like 'critical_thinking' or 'decision_framework'. The purpose is clear but vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus any of the 14 sibling tools, nor does it mention when not to use it or what alternatives exist.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/emmahyde/thinking-patterns'

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