Skip to main content
Glama

emem, the verifiable memory protocol for the physical world

Mint or get a canonical object identity

emem_entity
Idempotent

Give a real-world object (a bridge, a farm plot, a river, a named place) a single, shared, content-addressed identity that any agent resolves the same way. Returns an entity_token (emem:entity:<entity_cid>) plus a signed receipt that attests how the reference resolved. Two agents that name the same object mint the SAME entity_cid; when a stable external id (Overture GERS / OSM) is known it dominates identity, so divergent labels for one real object still collapse to one id. This is the object-level antidote to referential drift: 'the damaged bridge near the river' becomes one canonical thing every model reasons about, not a phrase each model re-interprets.

When to use: Call when a conversation refers to a THING and you want a stable handle to it that survives summarization and travels between agents/turns/LLMs, before it drifts into 'that infrastructure issue'. Anchor it with place, a cell, or lat+lng. Hand the returned emem:entity: token to any other agent; they dereference the identical object. Recall/ask at the entity's cell64 for signed facts about it. Pick the right sibling: emem_entity MINTS or returns the identity for a thing you can anchor to a place; emem_entity_resolve takes a fuzzy phrase and finds an identity someone ALREADY registered, so reach for it when you suspect the thing is known and you only have words for it; emem_entity_link asserts that two spellings you already hold mean one object. Do NOT call this for an observation, which is a fact and belongs in emem_recall or emem_memory_token, and do not call it to name a place itself, which is emem_locate: an entity is a THING AT a place, not the place.

Example arguments: {"label":"Golden Gate Bridge","kind":"bridge","place":"Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
latNoLatitude anchoring the object to a place, paired with lng. The identity is hashed from this anchor, so two agents anchoring the same object differently mint different entities.
lngNoLongitude, paired with lat.
cellNocell64 to anchor the object directly (no geocode).
kindNoObject class: bridge, river, farm_plot, building, admin_division, place, custom, ... Defaults to "place".
labelYesHuman name of the object, e.g. "Golden Gate Bridge", "the north dam". Required.
placeNoFree-text place to anchor the object (geocoded). Provide place OR cell OR lat+lng.
parentNoOptional parent entity_cid (containment).
external_idsNoStable ids that drive convergence. Caller-supplied values win over geocoder-derived ones.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) are complemented by description details: the same entity_cid is minted for the same object, external IDs dominate identity resolution, and a signed receipt is returned. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations without any contradiction.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, exclusions, and an example. Every paragraph earns its place given the tool's complexity and many siblings; it is verbose but not wasteful.

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?

The description covers return values, how to reference the entity later, sibling distinctions, and anchoring constraints, all for a complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. It is exceptionally complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-defined. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between anchoring parameters (place/cell/lat+lng) and noting that caller-supplied external_ids win over geocoder-derived ones, plus a concrete example. This enriches beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource ('Give a real-world object a single, shared, content-addressed identity') and clearly states the return value (entity_token plus signed receipt). It explicitly differentiates from siblings like emem_entity_resolve and emem_entity_link, making the tool's unique 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?

The 'When to use' paragraph gives explicit context (conversations referencing a THING) and directly names alternatives (emem_entity_resolve for already-registered identities, emem_entity_link for linking existing spellings), plus clear 'Do NOT call' exclusions for observations and places. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are sharply distinct, with the entity_* family (mint/resolve/link) and memory_* family (token/bundle/contradictions) explicitly cross-referenced to prevent confusion. The only mild overlap is the verify cluster — emem_echo_verify, emem_verify_receipt, and emem_guard_verdict all touch verification but are well-delineated (value drift vs. cryptographic envelope vs. policy gate) — and emem_intent's type:'ask' row duplicating emem_ask.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the emem_ prefix and snake_case, with systematic sub-families (emem_entity*, emem_memory_token*, emem_verify*) that make relationships predictable. However, the pattern is not uniformly verb_noun: bare nouns (emem_entity, emem_intent, emem_tools, emem_recall) and mixed constructions like emem_echo_verify and emem_find_similar deviate from a single convention.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is just over the ideal 3-15 range, but the count is deliberate: the server curates a small core loop and provides emem_tools as a discovery meta-tool to reach the broader 108-tool catalog. Each listed tool earns its place in the locate → recall → cite → resolve → verify workflow, so the slight overage feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

The full consumption lifecycle is covered: locate (emem_locate), recall (emem_recall), ask (emem_ask), cite (emem_memory_token/bundle), resolve (emem_memory_token_resolve), verify (emem_verify_receipt/echo_verify), with entity identity, contradiction detection, similarity search, and policy guard as extras. Minor gaps exist — emem_diff for pair quantification and emem_recall_polygon for regions are referenced but not in the core list, and there is no write/attest tool (though that appears to be by design for a verifiable memory protocol).