Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SecondBrain MCP

SecondBrain MCP

by vladilenm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

extract_decisions

Retrieve decisions from your decision log folders, sorted newest first. Optionally filter by area to focus on a specific topic.

Instructions

Extract decisions from decision log folders (02_Areas/*/Decisions/). Optionally filter by area name. Sorted newest first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "extract_decisions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
areaNoFilter by area name (e.g. "EdTech", "B2B", "Content")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Sorted newest first' and optional filtering, but lacks details on whether the operation is read-only, permissions needed, or the exact return format (e.g., fields returned). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no fluff: first sentence states purpose and location, second adds filter and sorting. Every piece of information earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., titles, full decision text). It covers location, filtering, and ordering, but leaves output structure ambiguous, which is a gap for a simple tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the parameter description already explaining filtering. The description adds no new semantic value beyond restating the parameter is optional, and mentions sorting which is not a parameter. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool extracts decisions from specific decision log folders (02_Areas/*/Decisions/), distinguishing it from sibling extract_tasks which extracts tasks. The verb 'Extract' and resource 'decisions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving decisions and mentions optional area filtering, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for other sibling tools like extract_tasks, nor does it describe when not to use this tool.

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