Skip to main content
Glama
putervision

agent-reasoning-mcp

by putervision
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

manage_reasoning_db

Destructive

Verify SQLite storage integrity via SHA-256 Merkle audits and manage database snapshots with stats, doctor, diff, and restore actions.

Instructions

Database maintenance, diagnostics, SHA-256 Merkle audit verification, and snapshot management (actions: stats, audit, doctor, snapshot, diff, restore). Use manage_reasoning_db instead of manage_beliefs when performing SQLite storage integrity verification or database snapshot restore.

Returns database diagnostics, Merkle audit tree, snapshot metadata, or diff reports.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoSnapshot name
actionYesDatabase maintenance operation: stats, audit, doctor, snapshot, diff, restore
projectNoTarget project slug
descriptionNoDescription for snapshot

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Previous value: -"Database maintenance operation: stats, audit, doctor (health diagnostics), snapshot, diff, restore"New value: +"Database maintenance operation: stats, audit, doctor, snapshot, diff, restore"
    • addedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "stats",
+  "audit",
+  "doctor",
+  "snapshot",
+  "diff",
+  "restore"
+]
  2. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.2.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Added value: +"Database maintenance operation: stats, audit, doctor (health diagnostics), snapshot, diff, restore"
    • removedInput schema / properties / action / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "stats",
-  "audit",
-  "snapshot",
-  "diff",
-  "restore"
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Added value: +"Description for snapshot"
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Snapshot name"
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Target project slug"
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful return-shape context ('Returns database diagnostics, Merkle audit tree, snapshot metadata, or diff reports'), but never warns that 'restore' overwrites existing database state or that actions carry differing risk — information an agent would want beyond the blunt destructive flag.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability summary followed by routing and return information; no filler. The parenthetical action list is slightly redundant with the schema enum but keeps the definition self-contained.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what categories of results are returned, and annotations carry the safety profile. It is close to complete for a six-action multiplexed tool, though per-action behavior (especially restore semantics) remains unspecified.

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% and the enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the action list and adds no syntax, format, or dependency details (e.g., that 'name'/'description' are only relevant to snapshot) beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Database maintenance, diagnostics, SHA-256 Merkle audit verification, and snapshot management') and enumerates the six concrete actions, so an agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It also explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling manage_beliefs, making it distinguishable without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use manage_reasoning_db instead of manage_beliefs when performing SQLite storage integrity verification or database snapshot restore.' That is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative condition. It stops short of covering the other actions (stats, diff, doctor) or any when-not/exclusion guidance.

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