Skip to main content
Glama

past.dev

by dev.past
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Ingest into a project's memory

ingest_memory
DestructiveIdempotent

Ingests one data point into a project's memory, as POST /api/v1/ingest does, and answers as it does: the ingestion id, the source id and the status. With no audience the data point is for the whole project; name an audience by its slug to keep it to that audience. An id that already exists replaces the earlier revision and the memories that came from it, and the same content under the same id is unchanged and costs nothing. It spends the project's credits as an API ingestion does. Ingest only what the person asks you to keep. Needs project Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoYour own id for this data point. Send it again to replace the earlier revision. When omitted, the id comes from the content.
labelNoA short title for the data point, such as "Email from Nadia". When omitted on a re-send, the stored label stays.
contentYesThe text to keep, as the person gave it.
projectNoThe project's slug, exactly as list_projects returned it. Omit it only when the organization has one live project.
audienceNoThe slug of an audience that exists in the project, to keep the data point to that audience. Omit it for the whole project.
identityNoThe author: the customer's own id for one of their users. Its first appearance creates it in the identity directory.
metadataNoYour own JSON, stored and returned as sent. Keys such as role, author, conversationId and messageId help past attribute and order what it reads.
timestampNoWhen the data point happened (ISO 8601). Now when omitted, or the stored time on a re-send.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / audience / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / identity / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / label / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / project / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains idempotency mechanics (same content under same id is unchanged and costs nothing), replacement semantics (an existing id replaces the prior revision and its derived memories), credit spend, and the required Write permission. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutating, destructive-capable tool.

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-loads the core action and return shape, then each sentence carries a distinct concern (scope, id behavior, credits, guidance, permission). It is somewhat dense and clause-heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the response contents (ingestion id, source id, status), plus auth requirement, credit implications, and scoping behavior. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 eight parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces id replacement, audience scoping, and timestamp defaults but adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ingests one data point into a project's memory') and clarifies the operational analogue (POST /api/v1/ingest). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like estimate_ingestion, explain_ingestion, or retry_ingestion, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Gives a clear usage constraint ('Ingest only what the person asks you to keep') and notes that it spends project credits, which helps the agent decide relevance. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g., estimate_ingestion) or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All past.dev toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources