Skip to main content
Glama

emem, the verifiable memory protocol for the physical world

by io.github.Vortx-AI

Attest that a phrasing/id denotes an existing object

emem_entity_link
Idempotent

Record a signed equivalence: bind an alternate label or a stable external id (GERS / OSM / Wikidata) to an existing canonical object so future emem_entity_resolve calls on that phrasing converge to the same entity_cid. Builds the shared reference graph that keeps different agents' vocabularies pointing at one identity.

When to use: Call when you learn that two phrasings denote the same object ('the north dam' == an existing entity), or to attach an authoritative external id to an object minted from free text.

Example arguments: {"entity_token":"emem:entity:0a1b2c3d4e5f60718293","alias":"the north dam"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aliasNoAn alternate label/phrasing that should resolve to this object.
entity_cidNoThe canonical object to attach an equivalence to. Provide entity_cid OR entity_token.
entity_tokenNoA `emem:entity:<entity_cid>` handle for the same.
external_idsNoStable ids to bind to this object.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the operation as a non-destructive mutation. The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, explaining that it 'Builds the shared reference graph' and ensures future `emem_entity_resolve` calls converge. No contradiction with annotations; the added context about graph construction and long-term effect is valuable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear headline, a 'When to use' paragraph, and a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence serves a distinct role: definition, usage context, and illustration. No filler or redundancy; appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage scenarios, example arguments, and how it relates to the resolve tool. It does not describe return values, but since this is a mutation tool without an output schema, that is not a significant gap. It could be more explicit about idempotency or signing, but annotations fill some gaps, making it adequately complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming the specific external id types (GERS / OSM / Wikidata) that map to the nested `external_ids` parameter, and the example arguments demonstrate the intended structure for `entity_token` and `alias`. The description clarifies that `alias` is an alternate label, which reinforces but also goes slightly beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Record a signed equivalence: bind an alternate label or a stable external id ... to an existing canonical object.' It explicitly mentions the consumer tool `emem_entity_resolve`, distinguishing this from sibling tools by explaining how it feeds the resolve process. The title and description align well.

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?

The description provides a dedicated 'When to use' section with concrete scenarios ('when you learn that two phrasings denote the same object' or 'to attach an authoritative external id'). It clearly sets the context but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for exclusion. This matches the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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

All emem, the verifiable memory protocol for the physical world toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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).

Resources