Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Linksee Memory

Linksee Memory

by michielinksee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

declare_anchor

Record explicit decisions, constraints, and prohibitions as normative anchors so drift checks can compare them against committed reality.

Instructions

Declare a new decision, constraint, or prohibition as a truth-map anchor.

Anchors are NORMATIVE claims: "we decided X", "Y is forbidden", "Z must always hold." The drift detector later checks these against committed reality.

declare-don't-mine: anchors come ONLY from explicit human declaration, never from pattern extraction.

WHEN TO CALL: • When the user makes a product decision ("let's go with approach A") • When a constraint is established ("never do X") • When a commitment is made ("we ship weekly") • When the user says "anchor this" / "record this decision"

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": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "statement": "<statement>"
    },
    "name": "declare_anchor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesAnchor type. 'proposal' = an option you presented that the user never addressed (an orphaned fork) — it lands as a review item and can be triaged later via recall({ dream: true }). (Absorbs flag_proposals.)
tierNoDeclaration tier (default: human)
domainNoDomain (strategy, product, engineering, etc.)
affectsNoPath globs that scope this anchor
decidedNoFor kind 'proposal': what the user chose or engaged with instead.
siblingsNoFor kind 'proposal': the other options from the same set, for context.
lifecycleNoLifecycle state (active, at_risk, retired)
node_typeNoNode type label
rationaleNoWhy this was decided
statementYesThe normative claim (>= 8 chars)
confidenceNoConfidence level (0.0-1.0)
detect_termsNoKeywords for scoping
review_afterNoISO date for next review (e.g. "2026-07-04")
decision_modeNoClassification for 4-species display
session_contextNoFor kind 'proposal': one line on the conversation it came from.
violation_signalNoTerms whose presence = violation (required for prohibition/decision)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.17.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that anchors are normative, later checked by a drift detector, and must come only from explicit human declaration (never pattern extraction). However, it omits whether declaration is a persistent write, what it returns, and how violations are surfaced—significant gaps for a creation tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose, structured into a normative explanation, a key rule ('declare-don't-mine'), and a bulleted 'WHEN TO CALL' list. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the 16-parameter schema (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, triggers, and behavioral principle adequately. It leaves a small gap around the declaration's lifecycle (e.g., persistence or return value) that would help an agent fully understand the interaction.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 16 parameters. The description only echoes the 'decision, constraint, or prohibition' kinds (missing 'proposal') and adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Declare') and resource ('truth-map anchor'), and explains what an anchor is (a normative claim like a decision, constraint, or prohibition). It stops short of naming a sibling tool to contrast with, though the 'declare-don't-mine' principle implicitly distinguishes it from extraction-based tools.

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?

A 'WHEN TO CALL' section gives four concrete triggers (product decision, constraint establishment, commitment, explicit user request), which is clear usage context. It does not specify when to avoid this tool or name an alternative like 'remember', so it falls short of a 5.

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