mitosis

Save a fact to the user’s memory

cortex_remember

Idempotent

Persist a fact, decision or conclusion into the memory, attributed to you. It becomes retrievable via cortex_ask immediately, in this session and every future one, from any agent the user has connected. Provenance: pass source_universal_ids from a previous cortex_ask so the fact links to its evidence. Keep each memory to ONE self-contained fact. Use this whenever the conversation produces a durable conclusion the user would want remembered — a decision, a preference, an outcome, a commitment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	e.g. 'decision', 'observation', 'task-outcome'.
`text`	Yes	The fact or conclusion itself — one self-contained statement.
`confidence`	No	0..1, weights the provenance edges.
`source_universal_ids`	No	Universal ids from a previous cortex_ask that this fact came from.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the fact becomes retrievable immediately and persists across sessions and agents, and that it is attributed to the user. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, so coverage is good.

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 with clear purpose, behavior, and usage guidelines. No fluff; front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use, and key parameter behavior. Without an output schema, it doesn't detail return values, but that is acceptable for a simple mutation tool. Could mention idempotency or limits, but not necessary.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining how to use source_universal_ids for provenance, and that text should be one self-contained fact. This enriches the meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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: to persist a fact, decision, or conclusion into the user's memory. It uses specific verbs like 'persist' and 'retrievable', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cortex_ask and cortex_recall by being the write operation.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: 'whenever the conversation produces a durable conclusion'. Also advises to keep each memory to one self-contained fact. Could be improved by explicitly mentioning alternatives for retrieval, but the context is clear.

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

All mitosis 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between cortex_ask, cortex_recall, and search, all of which retrieve from the user's memory. cortex_recall explicitly describes itself as a subset of cortex_ask, and search's description is nearly identical to cortex_ask's core function, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly. Other tools are more distinct, but this triple overlap creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming is inconsistent: memory tools are split between a cortex_* prefix (ask, recall, manifest, status, etc.) and bare fetch/search, with no clear rule for which gets the prefix. Within cortex_*, some are verbs (ask, recall, remember) and some are nouns (manifest, status, connectable_sources), and platform tools use get_/list_/search_ prefixes, resulting in a mixed and unpredictable naming pattern.

Tool Count4/5

13 tools is a reasonable number for a server covering both memory operations and platform information. However, the presence of three overlapping retrieval tools (cortex_ask, cortex_recall, search) slightly inflates the count, suggesting some redundancy rather than each tool earning a unique place.

Completeness4/5

The server covers core workflows: reading memory (ask, search, recall, fetch, manifest), writing memory (remember, ingest_conversation), checking health (status), and accessing platform info (get_platform_status, get_pricing, list_skills, search_docs). Minor gaps include no explicit update/delete for individual memories and no direct tool to connect new sources (only listings of connectable ones), but these are often user-driven actions.

Resources

Need Help?