state-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

use_blackboard

Destructive

Post, read, list, set, or delete transient inter-agent messages while acquiring or releasing mutex resource leases for asynchronous multi-agent coordination.

Instructions

Multi-agent shared blackboard for asynchronous coordination and mutex leases (actions: get, set, delete, lease, list, post, read). Use use_blackboard instead of manage_nodes when exchanging transient inter-agent messages or mutex resource leases rather than recording persistent graph knowledge.

Returns blackboard message payload, lease acquisition status, active topic list, or deletion confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Blackboard entry identifier for get or delete.
`mode`	No	Lease action mode: acquire or release (default: acquire).
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items or topics to return.
`topic`	No	Blackboard topic or channel name.
`action`	Yes	The blackboard action to execute: get, set, delete, lease, list, post, read.
`content`	No	Message payload to post/set.
`project`	No	Target project name or slug.
`agent_id`	No	Sender or claiming agent identifier.
`agent_role`	No	Sender agent role (e.g. planner, coder, reviewer).
`resource_id`	No	Resource identifier to lease or release.
`ttl_seconds`	No	Time-to-live in seconds (default: 3600).
`topic_prefix`	No	Prefix filter for listing topics.
`duration_seconds`	No	Lease hold duration in seconds (default: 60).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1Sep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"The blackboard action to execute."New value: +"The blackboard action to execute: get, set, delete, lease, list, post, read."

addedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Added value: +[
+  "get",
+  "set",
+  "delete",
+  "lease",
+  "list",
+  "post",
+  "read"
+]

Changed11 schema fields changedv1.2.1Sep 23, 2026

removedInput schema / $schema

Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

changedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description

Previous value: -"Sender agent identifier."New value: +"Sender or claiming agent identifier."

changedInput schema / properties / content / description

Previous value: -"Message payload to post."New value: +"Message payload to post/set."

addedInput schema / properties / duration_seconds

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lease hold duration in seconds (default: 60).",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Blackboard entry identifier for get or delete.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Maximum number of items or topics to return.",
+  "type": "number"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / mode

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Lease action mode: acquire or release (default: acquire).",
+  "enum": [
+    "acquire",
+    "release"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / resource_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Resource identifier to lease or release.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / topic_prefix

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Prefix filter for listing topics.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "action"
+]
```

Addedv1.0.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the return shapes (message payload, lease acquisition status, topic list, deletion confirmation) and the asynchronous/lease coordination model. It does not, however, say which of the seven actions is destructive or what deletion actually removes, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the sibling disambiguation and return summary. The parenthetical action list duplicates the action enum verbatim, which is a small but real redundancy rather than a functional defect.

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?

For a 13-parameter, 7-action tool with no output schema, the description does carry the return-value information an agent would otherwise lack. What is missing is the mapping of which parameters apply to which action (e.g. id for get/delete, resource_id for lease), leaving the agent to infer that from parameter names alone.

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% across all 13 parameters, so the schema already documents each field including enum values and defaults. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond repeating the action enum, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a concrete verb+resource ('Multi-agent shared blackboard') and enumerates the seven supported actions, which the agent can map directly onto the enum. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling manage_nodes, so an agent can route between them 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 Guidelines5/5

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

States an explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule: 'Use use_blackboard instead of manage_nodes when exchanging transient inter-agent messages or mutex resource leases rather than recording persistent graph knowledge.' The alternative and the selecting condition are both named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

use_blackboard

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools