Skip to main content
Glama

evaluateInsight

Assess the long-term value of insights by evaluating actionability, longevity, findability, and future reference. Identify meaningful thoughts for future work and filter out trivial details. Part of MCP Notes.

Instructions

  Evaluate the long-term value and significance of an insight or thought based on the following criteria: 
  1. Actionability (1-10): Can this be applied to future work? Is there any information that can be used to apply this thought to future work in different contexts? Is the problem it solves clear?
  2. Longevity (1-10): Will this be relevant months or years from now?
  3. Findability (1-10): Would this be hard to rediscover if forgotten?
  4. Future Reference Value (1-10): How likely are you to need this again?
  
  Insights to ignore: 
  1. Trivial syntax details
  2. Redundant information
  

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionabilityYes
evaluationStepYes
findabilityYes
futureReferenceValueYes
longevityYes
nextStepNeededYes
thoughtYes
totalStepsYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function in handleToolCall that processes evaluateInsight tool calls. It sums the evaluation scores (actionability, longevity, findability, futureReferenceValue), checks if total > 18, and returns a JSON response indicating if the insight has significant long-term value.
    case "evaluateInsight": {
      const insightArgs = args as EvaluateInsightArgs;
      const result = insightArgs.actionability + insightArgs.longevity + insightArgs.findability + insightArgs.futureReferenceValue;  
      const isValuable = result > 18;
      if (isValuable) {
        return {
            content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify({result: `This insight has significant long-term value`, ...insightArgs, isValuable}, null, 2) }],
        };
      } else {
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify({result: `This insight may not have sufficient long-term value`, ...insightArgs, isValuable}, null, 2) }],
        };
      }
    }
  • Registration of the evaluateInsight tool in getToolDefinitions(), including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: "evaluateInsight",
      description: `
      Evaluate the long-term value and significance of an insight or thought based on the following criteria: 
      1. Actionability (1-10): Can this be applied to future work? Is there any information that can be used to apply this thought to future work in different contexts? Is the problem it solves clear?
      2. Longevity (1-10): Will this be relevant months or years from now?
      3. Findability (1-10): Would this be hard to rediscover if forgotten?
      4. Future Reference Value (1-10): How likely are you to need this again?
      
      Insights to ignore: 
      1. Trivial syntax details
      2. Redundant information
      `,
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          thought: { type: "string" },
          evaluationStep: { type: "number" },
          totalSteps: { type: "number" },
          nextStepNeeded: { type: "boolean" },
          actionability: { type: "number" },
          longevity: { type: "number" },
          findability: { type: "number" },
          futureReferenceValue: { type: "number" }
        },
        required: ["thought", "evaluationStep", "totalSteps", "nextStepNeeded", "actionability", "longevity", "findability", "futureReferenceValue"]
      },
    },
  • TypeScript interface definition for EvaluateInsightArgs, extending StickyArgs which defines the input properties.
    // Rename to EvaluateInsightArgs
    interface EvaluateInsightArgs extends StickyArgs {}
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the evaluation criteria and what to ignore, but it doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as how the evaluation is performed (e.g., algorithmic vs. manual), what the output looks like, whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, or any rate limits or permissions required. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is appropriately sized and well-structured, using bullet points to list criteria and insights to ignore, making it easy to scan. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the criteria list more tightly, but overall, it's efficient and clear.

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?

Given the complexity of 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the evaluation criteria and exclusions but fails to explain the full parameter set, behavioral aspects, or expected outputs. For a tool with this level of complexity and no structured support, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be effective.

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%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only partially compensates by listing the four criteria (actionability, longevity, findability, future reference value), which correspond to 4 of the 8 parameters. However, it doesn't explain the other parameters (e.g., 'thought', 'evaluationStep', 'totalSteps', 'nextStepNeeded'), leaving them undocumented. This incomplete coverage reduces the tool's usability.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to evaluate the long-term value and significance of an insight based on specific criteria (actionability, longevity, findability, future reference value). It specifies the verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'insight or thought', making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'log' or 'rollup', which might also involve processing insights, though the evaluation focus is distinct.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for evaluating insights based on long-term value criteria. It includes explicit guidelines on what types of insights to ignore (trivial syntax details, redundant information), which helps in decision-making. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'log' for simple recording or 'rollup' for summarization.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/markacianfrani/mcp-notes'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server