GIA MCP Server

compose_memory_packs

Combine multiple memory packs into a unified execution context with inherit rules: highest risk, shortest TTL, intersecting roles, and downward trust contamination.

Instructions

Compose multiple memory packs into a unified execution context. Highest risk level wins, shortest TTL wins, roles intersect, trust level contaminates downward.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pack_ids": "<pack_ids>",
      "composed_id": "<composed_id>",
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "operator_role": "<operator_role>"
    },
    "name": "compose_memory_packs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pack_ids`	Yes	IDs of packs to compose (minimum 2)
`composed_id`	Yes	ID for the composed pack
`agent_id`	Yes	Agent performing composition
`operator_role`	Yes	Operator role

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.6May 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are neutral (all false), but the description provides detailed behavioral rules: highest risk level wins, shortest TTL wins, roles intersect, trust level contaminates downward. This adds valuable context beyond annotations, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence plus four clear behavioral rules. Every part is necessary and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (4 required params, composition logic), the description is too brief. It lacks prerequisites, edge-case handling, or what happens to original packs. While the core logic is explained, completeness suffers.

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 schema already describes each parameter. The description adds no extra semantic detail about individual parameters, thus baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it composes multiple memory packs into a unified execution context. The verb 'compose' is specific, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'distill_memory_pack' or 'promote_memory_pack', so it does not fully distinguish.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. An agent would need to infer usage from the name and description. No exclusions or alternative tools mentioned, which is a significant gap.

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

Deploy Server