MemoryRouter

Commit reflections

commit_reflections

Idempotent

Use this to complete a consolidation started with consolidate_memories. Submits the reflection entries you wrote for the checked-out batch. Each entry is standalone prose with an importance rating from 1 to 10. The server stores the reflections, links them to their source memories, and marks the sources consolidated. Safe to retry: committing the same batch twice returns the original result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entries`	Yes
`batch_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`debt`	No
`tier`	Yes
`committed`	Yes
`entries_created`	Yes
`already_committed`	Yes
`sources_consolidated`	Yes

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds detail beyond annotations: it explains the server stores reflections, links them to source memories, and marks sources consolidated. It also clarifies idempotency ('committing the same batch twice returns the original result'), enriching the idempotentHint annotation. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, all high-value: purpose, content of submissions, and server behavior plus idempotency. No redundancy or fluff. Information is front-loaded with the primary use case.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description covers the workflow context (consolidation), the expected input format, and the outcome (storage, linking, consolidation marking). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains both parameters: 'batch' (batch_id) as the checked-out batch, and 'entries' as 'standalone prose with an importance rating from 1 to 10'. This gives functional meaning that complements the schema's structural constraints.

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 function: 'complete a consolidation started with consolidate_memories' and 'Submits the reflection entries'. It identifies the specific resource (checked-out batch) and distinguishes from sibling tools by framing it as the commit step in a workflow.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to complete a consolidation started with consolidate_memories', giving clear context and a prerequisite. Also notes 'Safe to retry' with idempotent behavior, guiding when re-invocation is appropriate. Alternative tools are not needed because this is a specific workflow step.

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

All MemoryRouter tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct, but search and search_memories overlap in purpose, with search being a legacy alias with fewer features. The consolidation workflow tools (consolidate_memories and commit_reflections) are very specific, but their descriptions clearly delineate their roles. Overall, minor overlap exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., commit_reflections, consolidate_memories, date_search_memories). The only minor inconsistency is the pair search and search_memories, where search deviates from the descriptive pattern of its counterpart. Otherwise, naming is clear and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

The server has 10 tools, which is appropriate for a memory management system. Each tool covers a distinct operation (CRUD, search, consolidation, inspection), and the count is neither too few nor too many for the stated purpose of managing and querying a personal memory vault.

Completeness4/5

The tools provide complete CRUD (store, search, retrieve, delete) plus consolidation and inspection workflows. Gaps are minor: there is no explicit tool to list all top-level categories or tags, and update_memory is absent, though consolidation and deletion cover lifecycle needs. The surface is nearly complete.

Resources

Need Help?