Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
VM Bridge

VM Bridge

by moravi1233-ops
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

vm_experience

Records pending ideas or tested procedures with scope, preconditions, steps, checks, and verified action IDs for later review; notes remain inactive and untrusted.

Instructions

Record a pending idea or tested procedure with scope/preconditions/steps/checks/verified action_ids. Never self-activates; notes are untrusted data.

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": {
      "owner_thread_id": "<owner_thread_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "vm_experience"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
owner_thread_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 usefully discloses that records never self-activate and are untrusted data, but omits persistence/return behavior, permission requirements, and what happens to duplicate or verified action_ids.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by behavioral caveats. The slash-delimited field list is dense but not wasteful.

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?

For a two-parameter record/write tool with no annotations or output schema, the definition covers purpose and key safety semantics. It lacks enough detail on parameter structure and sibling-tool boundaries, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% and body is an open object, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It names expected body contents (scope, preconditions, steps, checks, verified action_ids), partially compensating, but leaves owner_thread_id and the required structure/format of body undocumented.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('pending idea or tested procedure') and enumerates the kind of content captured. It does not distinguish this from sibling memory/update tools, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies use when capturing a pending idea or tested procedure, and notes that records never self-activate. It gives no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives such as vm_propose_update or vm_apply_update, leaving routing to inference.

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