Skip to main content
Glama

decision_record

Record a user's judgment on a task or project, including kind, reason, and optional auto-expiry, to preserve decisions and avoid re-litigation. Writes a decision journal entry to the target's note.

Instructions

Record agent memory of user judgment on a task or project — kind, reason, and an optional auto-expiry. Writes a decision-journal fenced block to the target's note (preserving any existing user prose), so future scans (e.g. project_health) can honor the decision instead of re-litigating it. Discriminates on targetKind: 'task' or 'project'. Do NOT use this for short-lived state — prefer waiting-on for follow-ups, or task_update for routine field changes. Pass idempotency_key to coalesce retries so the same decision is recorded only once. Returns { targetKind, targetId, decision } with the persisted entry. Side effects: writes the target's note via task_update / project_update; sets meta.syncPending = true. Example: { "targetKind": "project", "targetId": "abc", "decision": { "kind": "stall-is-intentional", "reason": "Strategic pause until Q3" } }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisionYesThe decision payload. `recordedAt` is set automatically on write.
targetIdYesID of the task or project. Must match `targetKind` — agent-side validation, but the adapter call surfaces NotFound if the ID is wrong.
targetKindYesWhether the decision attaches to a task or a project.
idempotency_keyNoIdempotency key for retry-safe writes. Append-shaped tools like this one duplicate silently on retry without a key; supply a stable per-decision identifier and identical retries within the TTL window replay the original envelope with meta.idempotentReplay = true instead of appending another journal entry. See docs/idempotency.md.
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses behavior: it writes a decision-journal fenced block to the target's note, preserves existing prose, notes side effects (writes via task_update/project_update, sets meta.syncPending), describes the return shape, and explains idempotency. With no annotations, it carries the full burden and does so comprehensively.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: starts with core purpose, then mechanism, usage caveats, idempotency, return, side effects, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (nested objects, side effects, idempotency, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, parameters, idempotency, return shape, and side effects. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 100% with descriptions, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of each parameter in context (e.g., targetKind discriminates, decision payload details, idempotency_key for retry), mentions auto-set recordedAt, and provides an example. This enriches the understanding despite high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'Record', the resource 'agent memory of user judgment', and the scope (task/project). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it writes a 'decision-journal' fenced block, not a generic note, and contrasts with short-lived state tools like waiting-on and task_update.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for long-term decisions) and when not to use (for short-lived state, prefer waiting-on or task_update). Provides guidance on the idempotency_key for retry safety and discriminates on targetKind, giving clear usage context.

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/torsday/omnifocus-mcp'

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