Skip to main content
Glama
riponcm

Projectmem

by riponcm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_summary

Read the project memory summary to answer project questions accurately. Call it before answering or editing code to avoid relying on stale assumptions.

Instructions

Read the project memory summary.

MANDATORY: call this BEFORE answering ANY question about the project.

Do NOT answer from conversation history alone.
Do NOT re-scan source files (package.json, README, src/) to understand
the project — `summary.md` is the distilled authoritative source and
stays bounded as the project ages (typically a few hundred to ~1,500
tokens), far less than re-deriving it.

Your prior assumptions about this project may be stale. Call this
cheaply at session start (and again before ending) to verify your
work is recorded.

Read-only; does not modify memory or trigger event logging.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoWhich project this call is about — a registered id, alias, or absolute path (e.g. 'ossdrop'). Omit it when the server was started for a single repo, or when an active project is set with `pjm project use`. Call list_projects to see the registered names.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / project
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Which project this call is about — a registered id, alias, or absolute path (e.g. 'ossdrop'). Omit it when the server was started for a single repo, or when an active project is set with `pjm project use`. Call list_projects to see the registered names.",
+  "title": "Project"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 well: it declares read-only behavior explicitly ('Read-only; does not modify memory or trigger event logging') and discloses a bounded return size (a few hundred to ~1,500 tokens). It stops short of describing failure behavior when a project is unregistered or ambiguous.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the mandatory usage directive, and every line maps to a distinct instruction. It is somewhat emphatic and repetitive in its prohibitions, but no sentence is purely filler.

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, and the description appropriately covers the behavioral essentials: read-only status, the bounded size of the summary, and when to invoke. Given the 1-parameter, optional-argument shape, this is nearly 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% and the single optional 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema (registered id, alias, or absolute path, with fallback behavior). The description adds nothing beyond the schema for parameters, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the project memory summary') and clarifies the scope ('summary.md is the distilled authoritative source'). It clearly distinguishes itself from re-scanning source files, but does not differentiate itself from the many get_* siblings such as get_context, get_instructions, or get_project_map.

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 explicit when-to-use ('MANDATORY: call this BEFORE answering ANY question about the project', 'at session start and again before ending') and when-not ('Do NOT answer from conversation history alone', 'Do NOT re-scan source files'). It does not, however, route the agent among sibling tools like get_context or get_instructions, which is the one remaining gap.

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