midas-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Close loop

close_loop

Records the resolution of an open commitment, superseding the open loop to remove it from open_loops while maintaining an auditable promise-to-resolution history.

Instructions

Close an open commitment: records the resolution and supersedes the open loop with it, so open_loops stops returning it while the promise -> resolution history stays auditable. Get loop_id from open_loops (the record id).

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": {
      "loop_id": "<loop_id>",
      "resolution": "<resolution>"
    },
    "name": "close_loop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`loop_id`	Yes
`resolution`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description explains key behaviors: it 'supersedes the open loop' and ensures 'promise -> resolution history stays auditable'. It also describes the effect on open_loops. This adds value beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and effect, the second gives a usage hint. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

With only 2 required params, no enums, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input source, and side effects. It is complete for an agent to use the tool 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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that loop_id comes from open_loops and that resolution is recorded. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could provide more detail on resolution format.

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 uses a specific verb 'Close' and identifies the resource as 'open commitment' (loop). It clearly states the action: records the resolution and supersedes the open loop. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like open_loops.

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 provides a usage hint: 'Get loop_id from open_loops', indicating how to obtain the required parameter. It implies when to use (to close a loop) and the effect on open_loops. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

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