Store a durable memory (a fact, preference, decision, or note) so it persists across sessions. Call this whenever the user tells you something worth remembering long-term.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Optional labels to group/find this memory later. | |
| text | Yes | The memory to store, in plain language. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the memory is durable and persists across sessions, which is key behavioral insight. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; it does well but could mention idempotency or storage limits.
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, no extraneous information, and action is stated upfront. Every word earns its place.
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 the low complexity, full schema coverage, and lack of output schema required, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, and basic behavior sufficiently.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add significant additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('store'), the resource ('durable memory'), and the purpose ('persists across sessions'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'forget', 'list_recent', and 'recall' by focusing on storing facts long-term.
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 explicitly says 'Call this whenever the user tells you something worth remembering long-term', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
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 clearly distinct purpose: remember stores, recall searches semantically, list_recent lists by recency, and forget deletes by ID. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the right tool.
Most tool names are concise imperative verbs (forget, recall, remember), while list_recent follows a verb_noun pattern. This minor inconsistency is still readable and predictable, as all names use lowercase with no mixed styles.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a memory system. Each tool covers a core operation (create, search, list, delete) without unnecessary bloat, making the number appropriate.
The memory lifecycle is fully covered: remember (create), recall/list_recent (read/search), and forget (delete). There is no missing operation that would hinder an agent from managing memories effectively.