Skip to main content
Glama

record_decision

Record an architectural decision with context, tags, and optional locking to prevent reverts across sessions and IDEs.

Instructions

Record one architectural decision. Set do_not_revert=true to lock it across sessions and IDEs. Returns {decision_id, session_id}. To change it later use supersede_decision (preserves the audit trail) or set_decision_flag (toggle do_not_revert / tags).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoOptional list of tag strings (e.g. ["security", "auth"]). Surfaces in list_decisions / list_tags filters.
forceNoIf true, skip the implicit `check_conflict` duplicate/conflict warning step. Use when you've already reviewed a conflict and want to record anyway.
symbolNoOptional function/class name within file_path to scope the decision to (e.g. "login"). With do_not_revert, the lock then blocks only edits INSIDE that symbol; edits elsewhere in the file warn instead. Requires file_path.
contextNoWhy this won (alternatives, what would force re-examination)
decisionYesThe decision itself (1 sentence is fine)
file_pathNoOptional file/path the decision pertains to
session_idNoOptional session id to attach to (auto-generated if omitted)
do_not_revertNoIf true, mark the decision as protected — future sessions will see do_not_revert=true and must NOT propose changes that conflict without surfacing this decision to the user first. Default false.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a write operation. It adds valuable context about locking across sessions and IDEs via do_not_revert, and mentions the return format. This goes beyond annotations, but could elaborate more on side effects like conflict behavior.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, key feature, return type, and references to alternatives. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 8 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, locking, return fields, and modification alternatives. It does not explain the force parameter's conflict check behavior in detail, but the schema covers that. Slightly lacking in overall context but sufficient for an experienced 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides for individual parameters. It mentions do_not_revert and return values, but these are not parameter-specific enhancements. Baseline score of 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 begins with 'Record one architectural decision,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing supersede_decision and set_decision_flag as alternatives for modifications, making the tool's purpose clear and differentiated.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to record a decision) and points to alternatives for changes (supersede_decision, set_decision_flag). It also provides context for using do_not_revert. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool should not be used, so it misses the highest mark.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/sachinshelke/codevira'

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