Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
big-brain

big-brain

by jzhao234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Vault overview

brain_overview

Get a session snapshot of your second brain: active projects with next tasks, overdue and upcoming tasks, unprocessed inbox items, and recently touched notes. Use it to see what you're working on.

Instructions

Orient yourself in the user's second brain: active projects with next tasks, overdue and upcoming tasks, unprocessed inbox items, and recently touched notes. Call this at the start of a session or when asked 'what am I working on?'.

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": "brain_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden and it does well for a zero-parameter tool: it discloses the full set of content categories returned, which is the key behavioral fact. It does not explicitly state read-only safety, permissions, or pagination/limits, leaving a small gap.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the agent gets back, the second front-loads when to call it. No filler or restatement of the name.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return contract – and it enumerates every content category (projects/next tasks, overdue/upcoming tasks, inbox, recent notes). For a no-param aggregate read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. No misleading param hints are present.

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?

States a specific verb (orient) and enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: active projects with next tasks, overdue/upcoming tasks, inbox items, and recent notes. This composite scope distinguishes it clearly from single-purpose siblings like list_tasks, list_projects, and list_notes.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions – session start, or the question 'what am I working on?' – which an agent can act on directly. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use list_tasks for a filtered task list), so it is clear context but not exhaustive routing.

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