Skip to main content
Glama

save_investigation_result

Store AI investigation results for error incidents to create an audit trail and enable learning from past fixes.

Instructions

Save AI investigation results for an error incident.

Used to store investigation results for audit trail and learning from past fixes.
Call this after investigating an error and proposing/deploying a fix.

USAGE:
- Call after completing investigation and deploying fix
- Stores root cause analysis, research sources, proposed changes
- Creates audit trail for learning from past investigations

REQUEST FIELDS:
- incident_id: UUID of the error incident (from get_acknowledged_errors)
- root_cause_analysis: Your analysis of what caused the error
- similar_incidents_analyzed: Array of similar incident IDs found
- research_sources: Array of URLs used (search_web_ai, Context7 docs)
- fix_type: Type of fix - 'code_change', 'config_update', 'deployment', 'migration', 'documentation'
- proposed_changes: Object with file paths and changes made
- confidence_score: Your confidence in the fix (0.0-1.0)
- risk_level: Risk assessment - 'low', 'medium', 'high'
- test_plan: How you tested the fix
- rollback_plan: How to roll back if needed
- deployment_commit_hash: Git commit hash of the fix
- deployment_results: Object with deployment success/failure details

EXAMPLE:
save_investigation_result({
  incident_id: "550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000",
  root_cause_analysis: "Timeout set to 5s, too short for slow networks",
  fix_type: "code_change",
  confidence_score: 0.85,
  risk_level: "low",
  deployment_commit_hash: "abc123def456"
})

RETURNS:
- investigation_id: UUID of saved investigation
- incident_id: UUID of the error incident
- investigation_status: 'in_progress' or 'completed'
- deployment_status: 'not_started', 'in_progress', 'completed'
- success: true if saved successfully

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
incident_idYesUUID of the error incident from get_acknowledged_errors
root_cause_analysisNoYour analysis of what caused the error
similar_incidents_analyzedNoArray of similar incident IDs found via recall_memories
research_sourcesNoArray of research sources used (URLs from search_web_ai, Context7)
fix_typeNoType of fix applied
proposed_changesNoObject with file paths and changes made
confidence_scoreNoAI confidence in proposed fix (0.0-1.0)
risk_levelNoRisk assessment of the fix
test_planNoHow the fix was tested
rollback_planNoHow to roll back if fix fails
deployment_commit_hashNoGit commit hash of the deployed fix
deployment_resultsNoDeployment success/failure details
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds that it stores results for audit trail and returns specific fields. It does not contradict annotations. It could mention more about idempotency or overwrite behavior, but given annotations are present, the description provides adequate context.

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 well-structured with sections (header, usage, request fields, example, returns). It is relatively long but every section adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement helps quick understanding. Minor redundancy in the usage section could be trimmed, but overall it's effective.

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 tool has 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers each parameter, provides an example, and lists return fields. It explains the tool's role in the investigation workflow. It could clarify optional parameters' behavior when omitted, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Parameter descriptions are already present in the schema (100% coverage). The description goes further by grouping them under 'REQUEST FIELDS' and explaining usage context, e.g., 'root_cause_analysis: Your analysis', 'similar_incidents_analyzed: from recall_memories'. This adds semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 begins with a clear action: 'Save AI investigation results for an error incident.' It specifies the resource (investigation results) and context (error incident, audit trail). The usage section ties it to a specific workflow step (after investigation and fix deployment), distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_artifact or save_snapshot.

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 explicit usage instructions: 'Call after completing investigation and deploying fix.' It explains the purpose (store for audit trail, learning). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different scenarios. Still, the guidance is clear and useful.

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

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/purmemo-ai/purmemo-mcp'

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