presenceRead live Lady Whiskerdown facet presence within the requested window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | Which conversations to include. Defaults to work, which withholds personal threads. | |
| window_minutes | No | Live window in minutes. Defaults to 30. Maximum 1440. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / scopeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Which conversations to include. Defaults to work, which withholds personal threads.",
+ "enum": [
+ "work",
+ "personal",
+ "general",
+ "all"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only provide a title; description adds 'live' and 'within the requested window' context. It does not disclose effects (none expected for a read), data freshness guarantees, or any rate limits, but this is acceptable for a simple read tool.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb 'Read' and object. No wasted words. Could be slightly more specific about the meaning of 'facet presence' but still efficient.
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 2 optional params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple read tool. However, the lack of sibling differentiation and the cryptic 'Lady Whiskerdown' phrase create minor gaps.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for 'scope' and 'window_minutes', but that is compensated by the schema's own descriptions.
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 states it reads 'live Lady Whiskerdown facet presence' within a window, distinguishing it as a read tool. However, the term 'Lady Whiskerdown' is cryptic and may confuse the agent.
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 implies the tool is for reading presence data within a time window but does not explain when to use this over siblings like 'areas' or 'wake'. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes like listing areas, capturing drafts, committing memories, and searching. However, the 'note' and 'handoff' tools overlap significantly because 'note' can be used with kind=handoff for the same scenarios that 'handoff' is designed for, potentially confusing an agent on which to use.
Tool names are all single-word, lowercase, and descriptive. Most are verbs (capture, commit, focus, etc.), but 'areas' and 'presence' are nouns, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall, the pattern is simple and readable.
With 10 tools covering listing, capturing, committing, searching, retrieving, and setting context, the count is well-scoped for a memory/knowledge management server. Each tool serves a clear purpose and fits within the domain.
The tool surface lacks update and delete operations for memories, which are essential for a complete lifecycle. There is no way to modify or remove committed memories, and no tool to list all memories (only semantic search). This creates significant gaps that will likely cause agent failures.