Skip to main content
Glama

mee_resolve

Resolve a detected conflict between two memories using evidence-based scoring.

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": {
      "memory_a_id": "<memory_a_id>",
      "memory_b_id": "<memory_b_id>"
    },
    "name": "mee_resolve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memory_a_idYesUUID of the first memory
memory_b_idYesUUID of the second memory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a tool whose name implies state mutation. It never says what happens to the losing memory (deleted, merged, archived, flagged), whether the operation is reversible, what permissions or evidence are required, or what an agent should do if the conflict is ambiguous. "Evidence-based scoring" gestures at an internal mechanism but discloses nothing an agent can act on.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting material an agent would need.

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?

For a mutating conflict-resolution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the outcome of the resolution and the safety profile entirely. An agent knows what inputs to send but not what changes as a result.

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 coverage is 100%, so both UUID parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that the two memories stand in a conflict to be resolved, which is minimal marginal meaning over the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: resolve a conflict between two memories. "Detected" signals this acts on a conflict already identified, which implicitly separates it from the detection-oriented sibling find_contradictions without naming it. It stops short of explicitly stating the differentiation.

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?

"Detected conflict" hints that find_contradictions must run first, giving implied context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion against alternatives like delete_memory or remember, and no prerequisite spelled out beyond the pair of memory IDs.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources