sync_pushPush local facts to a remote memory instance. Private facts and sensitive entity prefixes (finance:, health:, credentials:, etc.) are never pushed. Call without confirm=true for a preview. Requires established passport tier (100+ receipts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that private facts and sensitive entity prefixes are excluded, and that a passport tier with 100+ receipts is required. It also reveals the preview behavior when confirm is not true. This covers privacy, auth, and a dry-run mechanism, though it doesn't describe merge behavior or reversibility.
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?
The description is three sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, exclusion rules, and usage/prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy.
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?
The description covers the core purpose, security/access constraints, preview mode, and prerequisite. Although it doesn't detail return values, an output schema exists. It omits potential side effects like overwrite semantics, but for a tool with one parameter and no annotations, it is remarkably complete.
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?
The schema provides only a boolean 'confirm' with no description, so the description must clarify its meaning. It does so by stating 'Call without confirm=true for a preview,' implicitly defining confirm=true as the confirmation to actually push. This is sufficient guidance for the single parameter.
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 identifies the action ('Push local facts') and resource ('remote memory instance'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like sync_pull by using the directional verb 'push' and adding scoping exclusions. This is specific and unambiguous.
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 provides practical usage guidance: it instructs to call without confirm=true for a preview, and states the passport prerequisite. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the sibling sync_pull is implicitly contrasted. It also notes a when-not-to-use condition (private facts are never pushed).
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.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.
The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.