Skip to main content
Glama
fitz2882

learned-experience

by fitz2882

Amend an experience

amend
Idempotent

Update specific fields of an existing learned-experience record to correct or refine stored solutions, preventing repeated mistakes.

Instructions

Patch fields of an existing record (better fix, extra avoid items, corrected context). Only supplied fields change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
patchYesFields to replace
expected_revisionNoRevision from recall/inspect; rejects a stale amendment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.4.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_revision
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Revision from recall/inspect; rejects a stale amendment",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / applicability
      Added value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": false,
      +  "properties": {
      +    "platform": {
      +      "maxLength": 80,
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "product": {
      +      "maxLength": 80,
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "project": {
      +      "maxLength": 160,
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "version": {
      +      "maxLength": 80,
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / claims
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "properties": {
      +      "key": {
      +        "maxLength": 100,
      +        "minLength": 1,
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "value": {
      +        "maxLength": 200,
      +        "minLength": 1,
      +        "type": "string"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "key",
      +      "value"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 12,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / observations
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "properties": {
      +      "level": {
      +        "enum": [
      +          "reported",
      +          "local-test",
      +          "target-environment"
      +        ],
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "observed_at": {
      +        "format": "date-time",
      +        "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$",
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "reference": {
      +        "maxLength": 300,
      +        "minLength": 3,
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "summary": {
      +        "maxLength": 600,
      +        "minLength": 3,
      +        "type": "string"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "summary",
      +      "reference",
      +      "observed_at",
      +      "level"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 30,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / patch / properties / preconditions
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "maxLength": 200,
      +    "minLength": 1,
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "maxItems": 8,
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral detail that 'Only supplied fields change', which is important partial-update semantics. It also implies non-destructive patching. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

One sentence with parenthetical examples and a critical scoping statement. Efficient and front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a patch tool with idempotentHint=true and a rich schema, the description covers the core semantics. However, it doesn't mention expected_revision's concurrency-protection role or what happens on stale revision, which is important for correct invocation.

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 67% (id, patch, expected_revision all have descriptions or clear names). The description adds the meaning of 'patch' as fields to replace, but doesn't explain expected_revision's role beyond the schema's 'Revision from recall/inspect; rejects a stale amendment'.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description says 'Patch fields of an existing record' with a specific verb (patch) and resource (existing record), and gives examples of fields. It's clear but doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'record' or 'reinforce'.

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 implies usage for correcting or updating existing records ('better fix, extra avoid items, corrected context'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'record' (create) or 'reinforce'.

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