Skip to main content
Glama

emem, the verifiable memory protocol for the physical world

by io.github.Vortx-AI

Check whether the citations in a draft actually verify

emem_guard_verdict
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run emem-guard's policy pipeline over text you are about to send, against this responder's corpus. Finds every emem: citation, resolves each one, and returns allow or deny with a machine-readable reason: EMEM-GUARD DENY <CODE> token=<token|-> fix=<fix> leaf=<leaf|->. Codes are PROV_SIG (signature did not verify), PROV_BYTES (resolved to different content than claimed), PROV_DRIFT (reading has moved past its band threshold), CLAIM_UNGROUNDED (a measurable claim with no citation, opt-in via claim_gating). fix is the actionable half: refresh_token, remove_reference, contact_admin, cite_observation. ADVISORY: nothing is blocked, and a citation this responder does not hold is never a denial, because it is indistinguishable from one minted elsewhere. Memory algebra: the verify operation (https://emem.dev/docs/model.html).

When to use: Call it on your own draft before you assert something, or on a tool result before you reason on it, to catch a citation that does not resolve while you can still fix it. Set claim_gating:true to also be told which measurable claims carry no citation at all and which emem band would answer them. Checking a payload some other framework produced (a CloudEvent, an OPA input, an OpenAI moderations body, another server's tool call)? Send it as-is and name its shape, because the default reader only sees texts/messages and a check that read nothing still answers allow. To ENFORCE this rather than consult it, run your own node: emem_guard_selfhost returns the procedure, and it works across Anthropic Inference hooks, Claude Code hooks, MCP tool calls, OpenAI-shaped clients, CloudEvents and OPA-style policy clients.

Example arguments: {"texts":["Elevation there is 918 m per emem:fact:defi.zb493.xuqA.zcb5f:yqbolgeoycqkvj3zkxukb4bjw4odhpwvfzqo3fbgwf4spk45zala"]}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoOptional free-text label for who is asking. Advisory only, never a trust boundary.
shapeNoWhich envelope YOUR payload is in, so you never have to reshape it to ask the question: send the body your own framework produced and name its shape. native reads `texts`/`messages`; `mcp` reads a JSON-RPC tools/call or tool result; `openai` reads a moderations (`input`) or chat-completions body; `cloudevent` reads a CloudEvents 1.0 structured event; `policy` reads {input}. It matters: a CloudEvent whose citation sits at data.text is invisible to the native reader, and a check that read nothing answers `allow`, so confirm `citations_found` matches what you sent. Unrecognised values fall back to native rather than erroring. This selects how the body is READ only — the verdict always comes back in this tool's declared output shape, because a tool that declares an outputSchema owes conforming structuredContent. To get the ANSWER translated into the same envelope too (an OPA `result:{allow,deny}`, an MCP CallToolResult to substitute on a deny), call POST /v1/guard/verdict?shape=… directly.native
textsNoFree text to check. Any number of pieces, in any order: a draft answer, a tool result, a whole turn.
messagesNoA chat-completions-shaped transcript, read for its text. Accepted so the same body works against a self-hosted emem-guard node and against any OpenAI-shaped client. Each item is {role, content} where content is a string or an array of blocks.
claim_gatingNoAlso flag measurable physical-world claims that carry NO citation (deny code CLAIM_UNGROUNDED, fix cite_observation). Off by default: it reports on the absence of a citation rather than on a failed check. The verdict names the sentence, the magnitude, and the emem band that would answer it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fixNoThe actionable half: what to change and retry.
codeNoPresent only on a deny.
claimNoOn CLAIM_UNGROUNDED: the sentence, magnitude, quantity, anchor, and source_band. source_band is a recallable band key, or null when this responder observes no band in that quantity.
actionYesNOT a clearance. `allow` means no rule fired, which on a transcript that cited nothing is silence rather than approval. Branch on citations_found and receipt.fact_cids.
checkedYesHow many were actually resolved, bounded by the verdict budget.
receiptYesed25519 receipt. `fact_cids` lists what actually resolved and is the field that separates a real citation from an invented one.
advisoryYesTrue on the hosted route, where nothing is blocked. Run your own node to enforce.
citations_foundYesHow many emem: tokens were found in the text. Compare with receipt.fact_cids: a well-formed token that resolved to nothing counts here and not there.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: nothing is blocked, a citation the responder does not hold is never a denial, and a check that reads nothing still answers allow. It also explains the fallback behavior for unrecognized shapes and the output-shape obligation.

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 dense but well organized into operation, advisory, when-to-use, and example, with the core behavior front-loaded in the first sentence. It is long, but most of the length is earned given the tool's complexity and non-obvious edge cases.

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 an output schema present, return-value detail is not needed, and the description covers when to use the tool, parameter behavior, edge cases, the enforcement alternative, and a concrete example. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical parameter context beyond the schema: a concrete example texts payload, the condition for setting claim_gating:true, and the consequence of not naming shape (a check that reads nothing still answers allow). This adds value, though the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run emem-guard's policy pipeline over text you are about to send, against this responder's corpus.' It defines the exact outcome (allow or deny with machine-readable reason codes) and distinguishes consultative use from enforcement by pointing to emem_guard_selfhost.

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?

It contains an explicit 'When to use' section: call it on your own draft before asserting something or on a tool result before reasoning on it, and enable claim_gating when you also want ungrounded claims flagged. It also names the enforcement alternative and explains when to send a payload as-is with a shape instead of reshaping it.

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