Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Memory design check

wever_memory-design-check

Read-only

Agent Oversight: submit an agent memory design as stores (name, scope run or cross_session, what it holds, lifetime), writes (store, what, trigger and the rule deciding it) and reads. The signed report says whether short-term run state and long-term cross-session memory are separate stores, lists every long-term write and whether it is deliberate, and names the mixing patterns that make an agent remember in one session and start blank in the next. Verdict not_separated, separated_with_gaps or separated. POST /api/memory-design-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-oversight-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-oversight/.

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": {
      "stores": "<stores>"
    },
    "name": "wever_memory-design-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`reads`	No	Reads from stores.
`stores`	Yes	Memory stores.
`writes`	No	Writes into stores.
`description`	No	The design in words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond that: it states no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing or configuration change occurs, that the result carries an Ed25519 signed receipt, and it discloses the x402 pricing, free-call allowance and the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof header that must bind the exact JSON arguments. That is materially more than the annotations supply.

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?

Front-loaded with what to submit before the report semantics, endpoint and payment mechanics. The negative-action list and the payment/header sentences are dense but each carries operational information; a small amount could be trimmed since the pricing detail is repeated across siblings.

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?

For a paid analytical check with no output schema, the description covers input shape, output verdict vocabulary, receipt/signing, cost and the required auth header. What is left implicit is the report's detailed structure beyond the verdict and long-term write listing, but that is minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, and the description's parenthetical restates the same fields rather than adding new constraints. It does convey the analytical purpose of scope=run vs cross_session and that triggers other than deliberate are flagged, which is slight added meaning, but the baseline of 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (submit an agent memory design) and enumerates the exact inputs (stores with name/scope/holds/lifetime, writes with trigger and rule, reads). It also names the concrete output: a verdict of not_separated, separated_with_gaps or separated. An agent can tell this apart from neighbouring oversight checks (continuity-check, context-sharing-check) without opening the schema.

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?

Usage context is clear: you invoke this when you have a memory design to audit, and the description spells out that it evaluates separation of run-scoped vs cross-session stores. It does not, however, mention when to prefer a sibling check or what prerequisite state (e.g. an existing design artifact) is required before calling.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?