Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mnemento

Mnemento

by reddol18
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

propose_schema

Draft schema proposals from existing fields or sample records without applying changes. Organizes fields and enum values, or creates a first schema for a new entity type.

Instructions

Schema proposals (never applied automatically).

    Without samples: how to organize drafts — fields and enum values that records already use but the
    dictionary has not registered (they are stored and queryable; organizing adds descriptions, labels,
    indexes, and merges look-alike names). Ask the user before apply_schema_proposal.
    With samples and a new entity_type: a first schema draft for a new kind of record.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "propose_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
samplesNo
entity_typeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does fairly well: it signals the operation is non-destructive ('never applied automatically'), clarifies that the fields/enums already exist and are 'stored and queryable' so nothing is lost, and explains what organizing actually does (adds descriptions, labels, indexes, merges look-alike names). It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the safety-relevant behavior is well disclosed.

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 key constraint ('never applied automatically') is front-loaded, followed by the two modes in parallel structure. It is dense but every sentence contributes; the phrasing 'how to organize drafts' is slightly loose but does not waste space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-parameter, fully optional proposal tool, the description covers both invocation modes, the non-persistent nature, and the handoff to apply_schema_proposal, leaving little an agent would need to infer.

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 0% and neither parameter has an inline description, so the description must compensate. It does: 'samples' is tied to the 'with samples and a new entity_type' mode and 'entity_type' is named as the key for a new record kind, giving each parameter a distinct role rather than leaving them opaque.

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?

States a specific verb (propose) and resource (schema), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling apply_schema_proposal with '(never applied automatically)'. It also spells out the two operating modes (organize existing unregistered fields vs. draft a schema for a new entity_type), so an agent can tell what it will produce.

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?

Gives a clear mode-selection rule: 'Without samples' = organize drafts, 'With samples and a new entity_type' = first draft for a new record kind. It also routes correctly by instructing 'Ask the user before apply_schema_proposal.' It lacks an explicit 'when NOT to use' beyond this handoff, but the context is clear.

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