Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Personal OS MCP

Personal OS MCP

by likalg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Start Review

personal_os_start_review

Start or resume a review session for an existing review type, including inbox, weekly, someday, overdue, stale, or archived reviews.

Instructions

Start or resume one review session of an existing ReviewType.

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": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "personal_os_start_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world action. The description adds the constraint that it starts/resumes one session and requires an existing ReviewType, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether resuming overwrites prior progress, or what state changes occur). 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter schema and low complexity, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return values or what a 'session' entails, even though no output schema is present. The sibling tools provide some workflow context, but the description alone leaves gaps for a stateful action.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'type' parameter, only implying it via 'existing ReviewType'. The enum values help, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the semantics of 'type' mostly inferred.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start or resume') with a clear resource ('one review session of an existing ReviewType'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_reviews, get_review, complete_review, and abandon_review by focusing on initiating or continuing a session.

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 clearly implies using this tool when you want to begin or re-enter a review session, as opposed to listing/completing reviews. It doesn't name explicit alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed.

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