Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LocalForge

LocalForge

by tanskong
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

work_update

DestructiveIdempotent

Record task, result, or checkpoint updates in a local ignored handoff file so LLM agents can track work state across steps.

Instructions

Update the local ignored handoff with task, result, or checkpoint content.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "root": "<root>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "work_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rootYes
targetNotask
contentYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.2

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the agent knows this overwrites state. The description adds only the 'local ignored' qualifier and does not say what gets destroyed, whether existing task/result/checkpoint content is replaced, or where the handoff file lives.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place, though the terse jargon-heavy phrasing limits how much the agent actually extracts.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the safety profile. The gaps are the undocumented root parameter and the absent usage context, which for a destructive 3-param mutation tool leaves the definition only marginally sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. 'task, result, or checkpoint' loosely implies the target parameter's allowed values, but 'root' and 'content' are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (update) and resource (the local ignored handoff), and enumerates the content kinds (task, result, checkpoint) that map to the target parameter. It is distinguishable from the sibling work_status, though 'local ignored handoff' is domain jargon an agent may not fully parse.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling work_status (read) or any other tool. No prerequisites, no conditions, no exclusions are given; the agent must infer that a write is appropriate from the verb alone.

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