Skip to main content
Glama

XMemo

by io.github.yonro

Open TODO Board

open_todo_board
Read-onlyIdempotent

Open the interactive TODO Board workspace to view, browse, and manage tasks. The owner_timezone input must be the user's real IANA timezone; never guess UTC. Use this when the user wants to open, browse, filter, or work with their TODOs visually — e.g. "open my TODOs", "show the TODO board", "what should I focus on today", or "view this XMemo project's tasks". For a quick text-only answer such as "how many TODOs do I have", use todo(action='list') instead. Create, update, or complete TODOs with todo(action='create'|'update'|'complete'). When the user explicitly asks to delete a specific TODO, identify its exact ID and call forget(target=).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoOpaque cursor for loading the next TODO Board page.
searchNoOptional title search query for the board.
due_rangeNoOptional due-date range: overdue, today, this_week, later, or none.
project_idNoOptional project identifier to filter the Ledger or TODO workspace.
source_filterNoOptional source filter for the board.
status_filterNoOptional status filter for the board.
owner_timezoneYesThe user's real IANA timezone, such as Asia/Tokyo or America/Los_Angeles. Required for honest calendar periods; never guess UTC.
assignee_filterNoOptional assignee or creator filter for the board.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusYes
countsYes
cursorYes
columnsYes
filtersYes
projectYes
summaryYes
surfaceYes
pinnedItemsYes
globalCountsYes
activeFiltersYes
filteredCountsYes
availableActionsYes
relationReadAvailableYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the important behavioral constraint: 'The owner_timezone input must be the user's real IANA timezone; never guess UTC.' It also clarifies that mutations are handled elsewhere, avoiding the possibility of the 'manage tasks' phrase suggesting write actions. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is somewhat long but every sentence contributes: purpose, critical timezone note, use cases, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured clearly, though slightly wordy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and thorough annotations, the description adequately covers when to use it, key behavioral constraints, and how it differs from siblings. It could mention pagination behavior but that is not necessary for a board-opening tool with output schema.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description repeats the owner_timezone requirement but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Open the interactive TODO Board workspace to view, browse, and manage tasks.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining that this is for visual/browse workflows while todo(action='list') is for quick text answers.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when the user wants to open, browse, filter, or work with their TODOs visually' with examples, and explicit alternatives: 'For a quick text-only answer..., use todo(action='list') instead' and 'Create, update, or complete TODOs with todo(action='create'|'update'|'complete')' and deletion via 'forget'. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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