Skip to main content
Glama

TeamShared

by io.github.xhad

Memory Procedure Set

memory_procedure_set

Insert a new version of a procedure. Each call creates a new version.

Playbooks are ordered skill collections: set tool_recipe.skills and optional steps_md intro. Routed through the guarded ingestion pipeline. Returns status (active or duplicate).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesProcedure 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; use tool_recipe.skills for the ordered skill list
descriptionNoOne-line summary
tool_recipeNoPlaybook recipe: {"skills": ["lint", "ship-pr"], "loop": {"max_iterations": 3}}. See memory_tools_catalog for full shapes.
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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-idempotent behavior (each call creates a new version), the guarded ingestion pipeline, and the possible return statuses (active or duplicate). It does not detail authentication or side effects on old versions, but the core behavioral traits are visible.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the operation, the second gives key parameter guidance, and the third covers pipeline and return behavior. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description adequately covers the main call pattern and expected result. It could benefit from clarifying what triggers a 'duplicate' status or how this relates to memory_playbook_set, but the essentials for invocation are present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the playbook shape: set tool_recipe.skills and optional steps_md, which clarifies two parameters beyond their schema descriptions. This raises the score above baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a new version of a procedure', and clarifies the key behavior that each call creates a new version. This distinguishes it from sibling get/list/forget procedure tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with related playbook/skill setters.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this when you need to insert a new procedure version, with guidance on setting tool_recipe.skills and steps_md. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, but the context is enough for an agent to select this tool over procedure get/list/forget siblings.

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