Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
scoped_memory

scoped_memory

by lixuanfan567-png
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_close_task

Close a task so its associated task tools can no longer read or update it, keeping project-scoped memory consistent.

Instructions

Close a task so its task tools cannot read or update it.

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": {
      "project_root": "<project_root>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_close_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
project_rootYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; the description adds real value by stating the consequence that task tools can no longer read or update the task. However, it does not say whether closing is reversible, whether closing an already-closed task errors (relevant given idempotentHint=false), or whether stored task context/checkpoints survive.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and nothing wasted. Every clause (what it does, what effect it has) earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a state-mutating tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and only terse annotations, the description is thin. It omits error conditions, reversibility, the fate of associated task data, and the meaning of project_root relative to task_id.

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?

Both required parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing. It never explains what project_root is for or how task_id is scoped within a project, leaving the agent to infer the relationship between the two.

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 pairs a specific verb ("close") with a specific resource ("task") and states the resulting effect, so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It also implicitly positions itself as the inverse of the sibling memory_open_task, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to close a task versus leaving it open, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools. The only hint is the consequence sentence, which is behavioral rather than usage-oriented.

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