Skip to main content
Glama
riponcm

Projectmem

by riponcm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_summary

Retrieve the distilled project memory summary before answering project questions, avoiding stale assumptions and costly source re-scans.

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
costs ~500 tokens versus ~5,000 to re-derive.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, does not modify memory, and does not trigger event logging. It also reveals performance characteristics (~500 tokens vs ~5,000) and warns that prior assumptions may be stale, which is valuable context beyond any structured metadata.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: a clear first line, mandatory usage, explicit exclusions, a cost comparison, a staleness warning, and a safety declaration. The structure front-loads the core action and then layers guidance, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-optional-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It covers what the tool does, when to call it, how it behaves, and its safety profile. No important operational dimension is missing.

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 input schema already provides rich, 100% coverage of the optional 'project' parameter, including when to omit it, examples, and how to list valid names. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score 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?

The opening sentence 'Read the project memory summary' states a specific verb and resource, and the rest of the description clarifies it is the distilled authoritative source. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_instructions, get_context, or get_project_map, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 gives explicit, forceful usage guidance: it is MANDATORY before any question, should not be replaced by conversation history, and should not be substituted by re-scanning source files. It also specifies when to call it again (before ending) and notes the token cost tradeoff. This leaves no doubt about when to use this tool.

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