Skip to main content
Glama

XMemo

by io.github.yonro

Project quick summary

get_project_summary
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a bounded quick-answer summary for one exact authorized project as concise text. Use this for brief status, blockers, progress, or next-action questions such as "how is this project doing" or "what is blocking this project". Do not use it to open, browse, or manage the project workspace; use open_project_workspace for that. When no exact project can be established, say so and guide the user to open Project Workspaces Home with open_project_workspace — never invent a multi-project summary. It never returns a raw context pack or a workspace resource.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoProject summary focus: status, blockers, progress, next_actions, or work.status
project_idNoOptional project identifier to filter the Ledger or TODO workspace.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusYes
errorsYes
bulletsYes
projectYes
headlineNo
freshnessYes
availabilityYes
completenessYes
schemaVersionYes
domainCoverageYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / properties / generatedAt
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / requestId
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "schemaVersion",
-  "requestId",
-  "generatedAt",
-  "project",
-  "focus",
-  "availability",
-  "completeness",
-  "freshness",
-  "bullets",
-  "domainCoverage",
-  "errors"
-]New value: +[
+  "schemaVersion",
+  "project",
+  "focus",
+  "availability",
+  "completeness",
+  "freshness",
+  "bullets",
+  "domainCoverage",
+  "errors"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavior: it returns concise text, never a raw context pack or workspace resource, and when no exact project is established it says so and guides the user. This provides useful context without contradicting annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct function: purpose, usage examples, exclusion/alternative, and fallback behavior. No redundancy, properly front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only summary tool with two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, scope constraint, failure mode, and output type. Output schema and annotations handle the rest, making this complete.

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%, with both parameters (focus and project_id) fully described. The description reinforces the single-project scope but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: returning a bounded quick-answer summary for a single exact project as concise text. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the alternative for workspace management (open_project_workspace).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit usage scenarios ('brief status, blockers, progress, or next-action questions') and explicitly says not to use it for opening/browsing/managing the workspace, naming the alternative. It also instructs how to handle ambiguous project references.

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

All XMemo 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple memory-retrieval tools (recall, search_memory, recall_context, read_memory, memory_overview) have overlapping purposes; detailed descriptions help but an agent could easily pick the wrong one. Similarly, ledger/open_ledger and todo/open_todo_board split text vs UI interaction, and forget overlaps with todo delete_all and ledger deletion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (read_memory, update_memory, search_memory, open_ledger). However, several tools use bare nouns or verbs (forget, ledger, project, todo, recall, remember) and memory_overview is noun_noun, creating inconsistent conventions.

Tool Count3/5

19 tools is on the heavy side for the apparent scope, and the surface includes several pairs that duplicate the same domain in text vs UI form (ledger/open_ledger, todo/open_todo_board). Still, the count is defensible given the combined memory, project, TODO, and ledger coverage.

Completeness4/5

Memory has full lifecycle coverage (remember, read, search/recall, update, forget, restore), and TODO and Ledger workflows are largely complete. Minor gaps exist—no explicit project deletion and no pure text list-projects tool—but core workflows do not dead-end.

Resources