Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

sync_audit_layer5

Record the result of a client-side Layer 5 codex review (sync.py merge gate) as a vault_events row. Body of the review is NOT stored — only an HMAC digest of the summary so operators can correlate without exposing review content. Opt-in: server skips writes (still returns success) unless ENV['AINOTE_LAYER5_AUDIT']='on' AND a versioned HMAC secret is configured. Used by the sync.py SessionStart hook + merge command to surface 'why was this blocked?' across multi-PC sessions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesVault path the review covered.
summaryNoFree-form codex output summary. Server HMACs this; raw text is NEVER stored.
verdictYesOne of: pass, flag, block, error.
chunk_countNoOptional: number of diff chunks the client fed to codex.
duration_msNoOptional: wall-clock time of the codex review on the client.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses critical behaviors beyond annotations: the summary body is not stored, only an HMAC digest; the server may skip writes while still returning success depending on environment configuration. Annotations only show boolean flags, so this adds significant context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence provides useful context (purpose, data handling, operational condition). No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the write condition, data preservation limitations, intended callers, and typical use case ('why was this blocked?'). Sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the HMAC behavior already in the schema's summary parameter description and adds no additional parameter-specific meaning.

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 action: 'Record the result of a client-side Layer 5 codex review (sync.py merge gate) as a vault_events row.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and references sync.py hooks, distinguishing it from generic sync/vault tools.

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?

It provides explicit usage context ('Used by the sync.py SessionStart hook + merge command') and a condition for when writes occur (env var + HMAC secret), but does not name alternative tools or provide an explicit 'do not use when' list.

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

All ainote toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources