Mnemos — memory as a service

research_brief

PAID (0.10 USDC). Structured synthesis brief on a topic, from local model knowledge only. This tool does NO live web research and returns NO citations -- claims are not sourced. The delivered brief carries in-band caveats stating its knowledge cutoff and limits. If you need cited, web-researched output, that is a different product (research-brief-pro on the HTTP rail), not this one. Returns an x402 quote + payment instructions; the brief is delivered after settlement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depth`	No	'quick' \| 'standard' \| 'deep'.	standard
`topic`	Yes	The research topic or question.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it performs NO live web research, returns NO citations, is PAID (0.10 USDC), includes in-band caveats about knowledge cutoff, and requires settlement before delivery. This is rich, specific context beyond what structured annotations would provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: payment, core function, limitations (no web, no citations), in-band caveats, alternative product, and settlement flow. It is dense but well-organized and front-loaded with the PAID warning.

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 tool's complexity (paid, settlement flow, no citations), the description is complete: it explains the quote/payment process, delivery after settlement, and in-band caveats. The output schema exists, so return structure is not needed in the description.

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% (both topic and depth are described in the schema). The description does not add parameter-specific details (e.g., what 'quick' depth yields), so it relies on the schema. While the description mentions the knowledge-limitation context, this doesn't deepen parameter understanding. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Structured synthesis brief on a topic' clearly states what the tool produces. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a related product ('research-brief-pro on the HTTP rail'), making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'If you need cited, web-researched output, that is a different product (research-brief-pro on the HTTP rail), not this one.' It also notes the paid nature and delivery after settlement, setting clear expectations for usage context.

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

All Mnemos — memory as a service 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with memory-specific tools like mnemos_store, mnemos_search, and mnemos_get_context differentiated by their descriptions. The main ambiguity is between mnemos_search and mnemos_get_context, which both retrieve memories but with different output formats, and summarize_demo is a deliberate clone of summarize though clearly marked as a demo.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools are prefixed with mnemos_ (mnemos_as_of, mnemos_store) while others use generic verb_noun names (code_review, fact_verify, notarize, summarize). This mix of styles makes it harder to predict functionality from tool names alone.

Tool Count3/5

15 tools sits at the upper boundary of the typical range, but the server is advertised as memory-as-a-service while also offering many unrelated paid services (code review, fact verification, research briefs, summarization, trust checks, embeddings). This breadth makes the tool set feel overweighted and unfocused relative to the server's stated purpose.

Completeness4/5

The memory domain is well covered: provisioning, storing, searching, context retrieval, and bi-temporal reads are all present, with no obvious dead ends. The non-memory tools are single-purpose and do not require additional CRUD operations, so no critical gaps are apparent for their individual tasks.

Resources

Need Help?