declare_constraintDeclare an organisational constraint (boundary, relationship, policy, or context flag) that agents must respect. This is a mutation operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | ||
| team_id | No | ||
| evidence | No | ||
| severity | No | ||
| assertion | Yes | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| constraint_type | Yes | ||
| assertion_structured | No | ||
| review_interval_days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'This is a mutation operation', which is a useful disclosure, but with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not explain side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens when a constraint is declared (e.g., whether it immediately becomes active). The disclosure is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple declaration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations, this brief description is insufficient. It does not mention the output schema, success/failure behavior, or any edge cases. The low complexity of the text does not match the high complexity of the tool, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameters except implicitly listing constraint_type values that already exist as an enum in the schema, adding no new information. Required parameters like 'assertion' and optional ones like 'scope', 'severity', and 'expires_at' are not described. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Declare') and the resource ('organisational constraint'), and enumerates the constraint types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_constraint' and 'get_constraints' by implying creation, but it does not explicitly say 'create' or contrast with 'suggest_constraint', so it is clear but not perfectly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that you should use this instead of 'update_constraint' or 'suggest_constraint', nor does it give any context about prerequisites or use cases. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.