Bulk-write memories into YOUR namespace (max 200/call, content <=8k chars each). Accepts the exact shape memory_export emits, so a whole namespace can move in with one paid call. Embeds best-effort; missing embeddings are backfilled hourly. Paid: $0.01 flat via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memories | Yes | up to 200 items |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers embedding (best-effort, hourly backfill) and pricing. It does not disclose error handling or idempotency, but the given details are sufficient for typical use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-load the core purpose and constraints, with no extraneous text. Every clause adds value: constraints, input format, embedding, pricing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects (input, constraints, behavior). It lacks failure mode details, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Beyond the schema's 'up to 200 items', the description adds content character limit, exact shape compatibility with memory_export, and embedding behavior. This enriches understanding of the parameter's use.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool bulk-writes memories into the user's namespace, with specific constraints (max 200/call, 8k chars each). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_write by using 'bulk-write' and referencing memory_export's shape.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when importing from memory_export and mentions pricing compared to free siblings, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or list alternatives. It provides clear context for a specific scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: export, forget, import, search (paid/free), stats, write (paid/free). No functional overlap.
All tools follow the 'memory_<verb>' pattern, with free variants appending '_free'. Consistent and predictable.
8 tools is well-scoped for a memory server, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
Covers CRUD via write (with supersede), search, export, forget, import, and stats. Missing a direct get-by-id tool, but export and search suffice.