Skip to main content
Glama

TeamShared

by io.github.xhad

Memory Playbook Set

memory_playbook_set

Alias for memory_procedure_set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPlaybook name (stable id)
tagsNoTags for discovery
agentNoOverride agent identity
owner_idNoOrg member UUID. Omit inherits last owner or the writer.
steps_mdNoOptional intro markdown before composed skills
descriptionNoOne-line summary
tool_recipeNoOrdered skill list: {"skills": ["lint", "ship-pr"]}
verification_daysNoVerification window: 30, 90, or 180 days; 0 for none. Omit inherits the last window.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Org member UUID. Omit inherits last owner or the writer."
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / verification_days
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Verification window: 30, 90, or 180 days; 0 for none. Omit inherits the last window."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool is an alias. It does not state that this is a write operation, whether it creates or updates, whether it persists, what side effects occur, or what permissions/ownership behavior applies. The alias hints at equivalence with ``memory_procedure_set`` but does not describe any actual behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations, a single alias sentence is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is not bloated, but it omits essential context that would make the short length effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given eight parameters, many sibling tools, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. The output schema supplements return-value knowledge, but the description still fails to explain the operation's purpose, side effects, or usage boundaries. An agent is forced to look up ``memory_procedure_set`` to understand this tool, which makes the definition incomplete on its own.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides useful descriptions, defaults, and types for all eight parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. An agent can call the tool correctly from the schema alone even though the description is uninformative about parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies this tool as an alias for ``memory_procedure_set``, which gives a specific target operation and clearly separates it from read/list siblings like ``memory_playbook_get`` and ``memory_playbooks_list``. It is not a tautology, but it relies on the reader already knowing what ``memory_procedure_set`` does rather than stating the behavior directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The alias statement implies this tool is used wherever ``memory_procedure_set`` would be used, providing some routing context. However, it does not explain when creating/updating a playbook/procedure is appropriate or when to prefer another memory tool. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations beyond the bare alias.

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

All TeamShared 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.

Resources