get_active_alertsGet active watch alerts across all watches for the tenant from the last 7 days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the time window and scope but omits details about the 'limit' parameter behavior, default values, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state it or describe any other behavioral traits.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get active watch alerts') and includes relevant scope and time context. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The description covers the core functionality clearly, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be explained. However, it leaves the 'limit' parameter completely unexplained and does not mention default behaviors, which are necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. This makes it adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The input schema has one parameter ('limit') with zero description coverage, and the description does not mention 'limit' at all. The parameter name and schema constraints (min 1, max 100) make it partially inferable, but the description provides no added meaning, so a score of 2 is appropriate.
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 specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('active watch alerts'), and the scope ('across all watches for the tenant from the last 7 days'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinguishes it from other get_* tools.
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?
The description provides clear context on what data is returned (all watches, last 7 days) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since the context is clear and no exclusions are needed for a simple read, this earns a 4.
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.