Neuron - "Synapse"

by recla93

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v5.4.2
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but some overlap exists (e.g., auto vs store_turn both save turns, pre_turn vs get_context for retrieval). Descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Names consistently use lowercase_underscore, but mix imperative verbs and noun phrases (e.g., auto vs help vs store_turn). No case mixing, so mostly consistent.
Tool Count5/5
22 tools cover the full range of memory management operations without being excessive. Each tool addresses a specific need in the workflow.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers extraction, storage, retrieval, maintenance, export, and help. Lifecycle stages are well-represented with no obvious gaps.
Average 3.7/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 2.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 154 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 5, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under PolyForm Noncommercial License 1.0.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers no behavioral details beyond the word 'Toggle'. Without annotations, it should disclose effects, persistence, or scope of the toggle, but it does not.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (single phrase), but this brevity sacrifices necessary context. It is not fully efficient as it omits critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a toggle tool, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the toggle's effect, state, or impact on other operations, leaving the agent uncertain about its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle keyword deduplication' is vague. It identifies a verb and a resource but does not clarify what 'keyword deduplication' means or how toggling behaves. With sibling tools like 'merge' and 'prune', the purpose is ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the export action but omits whether it is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about side effects.
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 very concise at 5 words, with no unnecessary content. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more structured by including usage tips without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It fails to explain the return value or any constraints, but the action is straightforward. A more complete description would include output format details.
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?
The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the single parameter 'context' is already documented in the schema with a default value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.
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 clearly states the action ('Export') and the resource ('complete graph as JSON'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'extract' or 'summary', but the specificity of 'complete graph' implies a full export.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'extract' or 'summary'), nor does it specify any prerequisites or context requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Force prune' implies destructive mutation, but there is no detail on whether it affects other data, requires confirmation, or is irreversible. The term 'Force' suggests aggressive action, but no elaboration.
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?
Extremely concise at four words, front-loading the action. Every word is meaningful, but the brevity sacrifices context, earning a 4 rather than 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the tool's role. It lacks explanation of what 'tangential links' are and when pruning is needed, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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% for the single 'context' parameter, which is well-described. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action (prune) and target (inactive tangential links). It is a specific verb+resource pair, though 'tangential links' could be more precisely defined. It partially distinguishes from siblings like 'forgotten' but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forgotten' or 'dedup'. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only says 'reset and start over.' It does not disclose that this is destructive, whether data can be recovered, or what specific state changes occur, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to include more information without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially destructive reset operation involving a 'graph', the description is too minimal. It does not explain prerequisites, side effects, or what happens after reset, especially given the complexity implied by sibling tools.
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?
The schema already provides a description for the single optional parameter 'context', so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter info beyond what the schema gives.
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 the tool resets the graph and starts over, which is a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'graph' refers to in this context, slightly limiting clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use reset versus alternative sibling tools like pruner or forgotten. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. 'Toggle' implies state change but does not disclose whether it is destructive, reversible, or requires permissions. The agent cannot infer the impact of calling this tool.
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 extremely concise at 4 words, which is efficient. However, it may be too terse, sacrificing explanatory value. It is front-loaded but costs completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description carries the sole burden of explaining the tool. It does not define 'semantic flashbacks', the effect of toggling (on/off), or how this interacts with other tools. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. According to the rubric, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters.
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 'Toggle semantic flashbacks' provides a clear verb-resource pair indicating the tool toggles a feature called 'semantic flashbacks'. It is specific enough to distinguish from basic CRUD tools, but lacks explanation of what 'semantic flashbacks' are, which might be ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'forgotten', 'get_context', or 'reset'. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals internal implementation details (embedding model, two similarity methods) but does not state that the operation is read-only, discuss potential side effects, or describe authorization requirements. The technical detail adds some transparency but is incomplete.
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 concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose. The first sentence is direct, and the second adds technical detail. However, it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits what the tool returns (output shape, response format), which is critical given no output schema. It also does not explain how 'top_n' and 'context' parameters influence results beyond default values. The complexity is moderate, but the description fails to cover essential usage context.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the embedding model (384-dim fastembed, NS_EMBED_MODEL) which is not in the schema, providing marginal added value. However, it does not explain parameter interactions or format requirements beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool performs semantic vector search to find similar keywords, specifying the methods (Turso vector_distance_cos or Python cosine fallback). It provides a specific verb+resource combination, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_candidates', though the name itself suggests the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_candidates' or under what conditions. There is no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or when to avoid using the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it requires authentication, or any side effects. The description is too minimal for full transparency.
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 a single sentence that is both concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be more complete by briefly mentioning the output format (e.g., 'Returns a textual summary...') or clarifying that it is a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are zero parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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 clearly indicates that the tool returns a textual graph summary covering specific aspects (top keywords, recent links, health, forgotten concepts). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' or 'Generate', which would improve clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forgotten' or 'get_context'. The description implies usage for obtaining a summary, but does not provide any context on when not to use it or mention sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or what 'metadata' includes. Adequate but minimal.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action. Highly concise.
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?
Given no output schema and 1 parameter, the description is adequate but lacks detail on return format or what 'with metadata' entails. Not fully complete for an agent.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.
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 clearly states the tool lists all available contexts with metadata, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_context' (singular) but does not explicitly mention differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_context' or 'forgotten'. The description lacks context on recommended usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses heuristic nature and zero token cost, but with no annotations, lacks details on safety (e.g., destructive potential) or side effects.
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?
Single concise sentence captures purpose and key differentiator without unnecessary words.
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?
Lists extracted items but does not describe output format or limitations, which is needed since no output schema exists.
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 100% and description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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?
Clearly states it performs heuristic semantic extraction (keyword, topic, etc.) and distinguishes itself by being token-free, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like summary or auto.
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?
Implies usage for fast extraction via 'heuristic (0 token)' but provides no explicit when/when-not or alternative tool guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It only states the tool performs a vector search but does not describe what happens if no candidates are found, the return format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool without annotations.
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 extremely concise at one sentence, containing the core purpose and a usage directive. It is efficient but could benefit from a more structured format to improve scanability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role in a screening pipeline, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about output, error conditions, or performance implications, and the absence of annotations means the description should cover these aspects.
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 100%, so the input schema already describes all parameters with documentation. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, warranting the baseline score.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: screening to find existing similar keywords via vector search. It also explicitly distinguishes its role in the pipeline by directing to call BEFORE store_turn, which differentiates it from the sibling store_turn and other 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?
The description provides explicit temporal guidance: 'Call BEFORE store_turn.' However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools is broad and most are unrelated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavior: merges near-duplicate concepts via cosine similarity, archives low-salience orphans to a recoverable graveyard, and states it is safe to run periodically. Minor gap: no details on what happens to merged nodes.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description covers both main operations (merge and archive) and mentions recoverability. Lacks explicit mention of return value, but side-effect tools often omit this. Adequate for the tool's complexity.
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% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context (e.g., 'cosine' for sim_threshold, 'low-salience' for drop_orphans) but mostly summarizes, not significantly extending schema meaning.
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 clearly states 'Consolidate the graph' with specific verbs (merge, archive) and a resource (graph). It distinguishes from sibling tools like dedup and prune by detailing merging near-duplicates and archiving orphans.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'safe to run periodically' implies maintenance context but lacks exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like 'dedup' or 'prune'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It describes the core behavior (finding keywords based on inactivity turns) and introduces the concept of decaying salience, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or exactly what constitutes 'keywords' or the output format. It is adequate but not highly transparent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and concept. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant information. Highly concise and structured.
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 3 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and the tool's purpose, the description provides sufficient context for understanding what the tool does and when to use it. However, it does not describe the return value or output format, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is largely 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 100%, so the schema already describes all three parameters with defaults and explanations. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it mentions 'N turns' which maps to threshold, but schema already says 'Inactivity turns threshold'). Thus, description adds no extra value, baseline score 3.
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?
Description clearly states the tool finds keywords not touched in N turns, with a specific verb 'Find' and resource 'keywords' (implied) and condition 'not touched in N turns'. It also introduces the concept of 'decaying salience', which distinguishes it from siblings like find_candidates or extract.
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?
Description says 'Useful for rediscovering lost concepts', which implies when to use, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions or mention alternatives among the siblings. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'token-cheap' as a performance trait, but does not disclose potential errors, auth needs, or size of returned text. Adequate for a simple read operation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every word adds value.
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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and high schema coverage, description is nearly complete. Could mention error handling or return format, but not necessary for basic usage.
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 100% and already describes the 'name' parameter with enum values. Description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting baseline.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Return' and resource 'FULL text of a Neuron skill/playbook'. Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's a detail-fetching operation after a compact opener.
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?
Explicitly says 'Use after the compact opener' and 'fetch it only when you need the details', providing clear context. Does not list alternatives or when not to use, but context is sufficient given no direct sibling competitors.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'POST fallback (0-token)' and actions like extract, topic-shift, auto-link, and save, but does not detail side effects, prerequisites, or limitations. The description gives a basic sense of behavior but lacks depth.
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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the action, followed by a clear usage guideline. No extraneous words. Information is front-loaded and every sentence is purposeful.
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?
The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core action and usage context, but does not mention return values, error conditions, or detailed behavior. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
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 baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameters. The schema descriptions for text and context are adequate, and the tool's overall description adds minimal parameter-specific context.
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 clearly states the tool performs a one-shot extract, topic-shift, auto-link, and save. It explicitly contrasts with store_turn, saying 'Prefer a curated store_turn when you can pick the concepts yourself; use auto only for throwaway turns.' This provides a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes it from a sibling.
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?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus store_turn: 'Prefer a curated store_turn when you can pick the concepts yourself; use auto only for throwaway turns.' This clearly indicates usage context and alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is non-destructive (loads context), that its output should be folded silently into the answer, and that it is a compact combination of status and get_context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects or modifies any state. Given no annotations, this is good but not fully exhaustive.
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 relatively concise (about 60 words) and front-loaded with the key action. However, it mixes instructions and context in a single paragraph, which could be better structured for readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It only says 'fold what it returns silently into your answer' without any description of the format or structure of the returned context. This is a significant gap for an agent relying on the description.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional detail beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'Current topic or question' is similar to schema). Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: loading relevant past context before replying. It identifies itself as 'MEMORY LOOP — STEP 1' and contrasts with sibling tools like 'get_context' and 'store_turn', distinguishing its role.
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?
Provides explicit when-to-use (substantive turns, not trivial or empty graph) and sequential instructions (call first, then reply, then call store_turn). It also mentions when to skip and that it's ideal for clients without automatic injection hooks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses salience boosting and that only future retrieval is affected. Does not mention other side effects like maximum boost or frequency limits.
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?
Three sentences, all essential: purpose, effect, usage guidelines. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, and consequences completely.
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 baseline 3 applies. Description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states it's a feedback signal to confirm useful context and boost salience. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the purpose is very clear.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to call (when retrieved context influenced response) and that skipping is safe with only future impact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'creates if new', indicating a mutation, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether the previous context is persisted or lost). The description is adequate but not highly detailed.
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 only two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core action immediately. It achieves clarity with minimal text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema), the description provides all necessary context: what it does, that it can create, and an example. No additional information is needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage, providing a description for the context parameter. The description adds value by giving concrete examples ('java/spring', 'python/django'), which enriches understanding beyond the schema's generic 'Context path to switch to'.
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 clearly states the verb 'switch' and the resource 'active context', with an explicit creation behavior. It distinguishes from siblings like get_context and list_contexts by focusing on switching.
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 implies when to use: when needing to change context or create a new one. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the context from sibling tools is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It accurately describes a read-only retrieval ('what the memory already knows') with no indication of side effects. However, it does not elaborate on auth or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval, this is adequate.
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 extremely concise—two sentences that immediately state purpose and usage. No redundant words or filler, every sentence contributes value.
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?
Six parameters are present, but the description covers the core purpose and usage scenario adequately. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. While some parameter behavior (e.g., depth effect) is omitted, the schema fills those gaps. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new insight beyond the schema, only hinting at the output ('related nodes and links') without detailing parameters like depth or format's injection use case.
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 clearly defines the tool's function: retrieving related nodes and links for a given topic from memory. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('nodes and links'), and distinguishes from the sibling 'pre_turn' tool by noting that for normal start-of-turn loads, 'pre_turn' should be preferred.
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?
Explicit guidance is provided on when to call this tool ('BEFORE answering when a question may have prior context') and when to use an alternative ('For the normal start-of-turn load, prefer pre_turn'). This helps the agent choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses that the operation is destructive (deletes aliases) and details the merge process. It is transparent about key behaviors, though it doesn't mention reversibility or error conditions.
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?
Three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, actions, and usage context. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the most important information.
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 tool with no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the merge operation thoroughly, including prerequisites (use after find_candidates) and effects (deletion of aliases). Lacks details on edge cases but is sufficient for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema definitions by explaining the roles of canonical and aliases in the merge process and how they relate to the tool's functionality.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: merging duplicate or near-duplicate nodes. It specifies the actions: moves links from aliases to canonical, sums salience, and deletes aliases. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dedup and find_candidates.
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?
Explicitly states to use after find_candidates reveals near-duplicates and provides an example. While it doesn't mention when not to use, the context is clear and helpful for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description implies a read-only listing but does not explicitly state safety (no side effects). Adequate for a help command but could be more transparent.
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?
Two sentences, each carrying essential info. No fluff, front-loaded with main purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it, including a pointer to sibling for more details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so baseline 4. Description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate as none exist.
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?
Clearly states it shows every Neuron command and how to use Neuron well. Distinguishes from sibling 'skill' by specifying that for full playbook, call skill(name='playbook').
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?
Explicitly says 'Call once at the start if unsure' and provides alternative: 'full playbook: call skill(name='playbook')'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool persists to long-term memory and curates for a clean graph. It doesn't cover side effects or error behavior, but the core behavior is well explained. A minor gap is lack of confirmation or return information.
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 concise and well-structured, using bullet-like formatting and front-loading critical information. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, when to call, data quality guidelines, and the alternative. No wasted words.
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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context for using the tool effectively. It covers the main use case and data quality rules. However, it lacks details on return values or error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a memory persistence tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 82%, baseline 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema by specifying constraints: topic 3-5 words, keywords as concept nouns, links typed edges with rules. It also explains 'episode' as a fact sentence. Some parameters like tags and entities are not elaborated in description but schema covers them.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: persist new information into long-term memory after a substantive turn. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'auto' by emphasizing it's the preferred, cleaner saving method. The verb 'persist' and resource 'long-term memory' are specific.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to call ('after replying', 'after a substantive turn') and when to skip (trivial turns). It also advises against using 'auto' as an alternative. Additionally, it provides data quality rules for topic, keywords, and links, making usage very clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Labels the tool as 'safe first call', strongly implying no destructive side effects. However, without annotations, the description could more explicitly state that it is read-only and does not modify state. The current description is adequate but not fully explicit.
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?
Two concise sentences. First sentence directly states the tool's output. Second sentence adds valuable usage context without bloat. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains its purpose and when to use it, especially given the large number of sibling tools. It also provides a pointer to learn more about the overall workflow, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has 0 parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from this.
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?
Clearly states that the tool returns the current graph state including nodes, links, health, and configuration. It distinguishes itself as a safe first call to check if memory holds anything, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'reset' or 'prune'.
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?
Explicitly recommends using this tool as a safe first call to check memory state. Provides broader workflow context by mentioning the 2-step loop and directing new users to 'help' or 'skill(name=\'playbook\')' for more guidance, effectively telling when to use this tool and what alternatives exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Neuron MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/recla93/Neuron/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/recla93/Neuron)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Neuron MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/recla93/Neuron/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/recla93/Neuron)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/recla93/Neuron'

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