Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
xgmem

xgmem

by meetdhanani17
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

save_project_observations

Store project observations with entity names and content strings to a persistent file for knowledge graph memory.

Instructions

Save observations for a project to a separate file in the format { projectId, observations: [{ entityName, contents: [...] }] }.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "observations": "<observations>"
    },
    "name": "save_project_observations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesThe project identifier
observationsYesAn array of observation objects to add

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose key behaviors such as whether the file is overwritten or appended, where it is saved, permission requirements, or error handling. Only mentions the output format.

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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words, directly stating the purpose and format.

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?

No output schema, and the description does not explain what happens after saving (e.g., return value, success indicator). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the schema structure without adding new meaning, earning the baseline score.

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 clearly states the action 'save observations for a project' and specifies the output format, distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_graph_observations'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_graph_observations' or 'get_project_observations'. The description only states what it does without contextual usage hints.

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