Skip to main content
Glama

Get project Reflexes

get_project_reflexes
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve project-specific Reflexes and reusable procedures with maturity levels and support counts, revealing what OpenReflex has learned from repeated work.

Instructions

Show the project Reflex and specialised procedures OpenReflex is learning from repeated work. Returns: the root Project Reflex after the first captured experience, plus specialised Reflexes with learning/learned/proven/stale maturity, support/verification counts and procedure steps. Use when: the user asks what OpenReflex has learned specifically about this project, which reusable procedures exist, or how a named Reflex works. Not for: backend routing internals or generic strategies (use get_candidate_paths for those diagnostics). Side effects: may refresh derived local Reflex data from already-captured evidence; touches no project files. Errors: a 'not enabled' message is returned until the project is approved.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.6

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: a potential refresh side effect (non-destructive) and an error condition ('not enabled' until approval). This goes beyond the structured annotations and clarifies 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 well-structured with clear sections (Returns, Use when, Not for, Side effects, Errors) and every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains concise despite its length.

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 zero-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it describes what is returned, when to use, exclusions, side effects, and error conditions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly avoids any parameter explanations since none exist, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially).

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 tool shows project Reflexes and specialised procedures, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from sibling get_candidate_paths by stating what it is not for, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 'Use when' scenarios and a 'Not for' section that names the alternative tool (get_candidate_paths). This fully guides an agent on when to select this tool versus others.

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