Emer Ai Tools

Store memory

store_memory

Anchor a memory/artifact on-chain as the NVS record ai:gh:<github_id>:mem:<content_hash> — a tamper-evident fingerprint others can verify later. Requires a signed-in session (OAuth) and counts against the FREE-tier per-minute write limit. Writes one NVS transaction paid by the gateway; reads back pending at once, confirmed after the next block (~10 min). Not idempotent — each distinct hash is a new record. Register your identity first. Returns the record name and the transaction id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`metadata`	No	Optional JSON object stored with the record (note, source, tags, …). Omit if unused.
`content_hash`	Yes	Hash of the artifact/memory, e.g. a SHA-256 hex digest. It becomes the record's ':mem:<hash>' suffix; the content itself stays off-chain (e.g. IPFS) — only this fingerprint is anchored.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`txid`	Yes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral context beyond annotations: requires OAuth, has rate limits, writes a transaction, returns pending/confirmed states, and is not idempotent. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and covers all key aspects efficiently.

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 mentions return values (record name and transaction id) and the output schema exists. It could elaborate on output fields but is sufficient given the complexity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining the content hash is a SHA-256 hex digest that becomes the record suffix, and metadata is optional JSON. This enriches the schema details.

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 action: 'Anchor a memory/artifact on-chain' as a tamper-evident fingerprint. It specifies the record format and purpose, distinguishing it from siblings like read_record and register_identity.

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?

The description outlines prerequisites: a signed-in session and prior identity registration. It explains limitations (write limit, non-idempotent) and the transaction lifecycle, but does not explicitly state 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 Emer Ai Tools 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

A4.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a distinct purpose: node health check, record reading, identity registration, memory storage, and session info. No overlapping functionalities.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (node_status, read_record, register_identity, store_memory), except whoami which is a common convention and still fits the style.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering node status, read, write identity/memory, and session, the scope is well-managed. No tool is redundant or missing for core functionality.

Completeness4/5

Core operations (check node, read, write identity/memory) are present, but missing listing/enumeration of records and an explicit sign-in tool are minor gaps.

Resources

Need Help?