Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
context-keeper

context-keeper

by jarmstrong158
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

prune_stale

Scan project memory for entries not verified within a set number of days, return them for review without deletion, and help maintain fresh context.

Instructions

Find entries not verified in N days. Returns them for review — does not delete. Call periodically to keep context fresh.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "prune_stale"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoEntries not verified in this many days are flagged (default: from config)
project_dirNoAbsolute path to another project to prune

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.15.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description correctly notes the tool is not destructive ('does not delete'). But it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or the exact format of the returned entries. Adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action and quickly clarifies non-destructive behavior. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the use case and periodic call recommendation. Missing details on return format are minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It implies the 'days' parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 finds entries not verified in N days and returns them for review without deletion. The verb 'Find' and resource 'entries' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from deletion tools like 'deprecate_entry'.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description suggests calling periodically to keep context fresh, providing a clear usage pattern. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'query_entries'.

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