AlphaWeb

brand_memory_write

Propose memory; admins may save with version checks. Reject secrets.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "operation": "<operation>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>"
    },
    "name": "brand_memory_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`path`	Yes
`title`	No
`content`	No
`summary`	No
`operation`	Yes
`rationale`	Yes
`workspace`	Yes
`source_urls`	No
`base_version`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`attach_documents`	No
`detach_documents`	No
`base_content_hash`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a write tool, closed-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: admin-only saving, version checks, and rejecting secrets. It is still thin on archive behavior, idempotency, and attachment semantics, so it is not a 5.

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 front-loaded and compact, with no filler. The clauses are terse but structurally ordered from core workflow to admin save and validation. However, 'Reject secrets' is somewhat fragmentary and the overall brevity is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

This is a complex write tool with 14 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description conveys only a high-level workflow, admin gating, version checks, and secret rejection, but omits required parameter semantics, operation modes, attachment behavior, and idempotency details.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only hints at mode ('propose' vs 'save'), version checking, and secret rejection, leaving operation, path, content, rationale, workspace, idempotency, and document attachment parameters unexplained.

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: proposing memory and saving it. It also adds that admins may save and that version checks apply. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like brand_memory_read or brand_memory_review, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description implies a propose-versus-save workflow and notes that saving is admin-gated, which gives some usage context. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus brand_memory_read or brand_memory_review, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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

All AlphaWeb tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?