Skip to main content
Glama

memory_context

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compile compact task context from project state for security investigations; flag critical details that exceed the soft budget. Use it to keep MCP sessions within token limits.

Instructions

Compile compact task context; critical state may exceed soft budget and is flagged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
budgetNo
projectYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful trait beyond that — that critical state may exceed the soft budget and be flagged — which hints at output behavior, but says nothing about how the flag manifests or how budget pressure is handled.

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, and the budget caveat is appended rather than buried. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and three parameters, one short sentence is not enough to call this tool correctly. Nothing tells the agent what a compiled context contains, how 'project' and 'query' interact, or what the flagged over-budget result looks like.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It only gestures at 'budget' (soft budget) while leaving the required 'project' and optional 'query' parameters — and their formats, maxLength, and pattern constraints — unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Compile' and resource 'task context' give a rough sense of purpose, but 'task context' is vague and the description never distinguishes this from siblings like memory_search, memory_graph, or project_resume. An agent cannot confidently tell when this tool applies versus adjacent memory tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many memory/project siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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