Skip to main content
Glama

inspect

Examine internal system states through activation, memory, run history, and calibration views to debug and monitor performance without writing or recomputing.

Instructions

只读调试窗口(v5.x):把系统内部状态做成立即可见的可观测面。

view ∈ {all, activation, memory, run, calibration},只含请求的 section(all=全部 4)。

  • activation:重跑 wake_gate(无模型)看「该醒没醒」(给 gold_regions 才判漏唤醒)。

  • memory:Experience Memory 按 region 盘点 + 年龄。memory_manifest=True 附全量清单(Brain Diff 用;默认 False 精简)。

  • run:读历史 eval run 的已存 summary + per-task 5 态阶段时间线;无 run_id → 最近 N run 历史表。

  • calibration:judge 校准状态 + am-I-blocked。

纯只读:不调模型、不写、不重算(wake_gate 已验为 read-only sidecar)。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalNo
viewNoall
filesNo
top_kNo
regionNo
run_idNo
contextNo
problemNo
judge_idNo
gold_regionsNo
history_limitNo
memory_manifestNo
memory_preview_kNo
escalate_confidenceNo
shadow_wake_thresholdNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, does not call models, does not write, and does not recompute, with wake_gate verified as a read-only sidecar.

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 concise and front-loaded with purpose, followed by bullet points for views. It could be better structured to cover all parameters, but it is efficient for what it covers.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of 15 parameters and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the main view parameter but neglects most other parameters and return values.

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?

The description adds meaning for only 2 of 15 parameters (view and memory_manifest), leaving 13 parameters undocumented. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate more.

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 clearly states the tool is a read-only debug window that exposes internal system states, with specific verbs and resources. It differentiates from siblings like 'inspect_file' and 'wake_gate' by being a comprehensive multi-view inspection tool.

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 explains the context of debugging and each view's purpose, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. Usage is implied but not comprehensive.

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/fanghaoling/brainregion'

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