emem, the verifiable memory protocol for the physical world

Intent-routed planner

emem_intent

Idempotent

Say what you want in one typed object and get the answer, without choosing a primitive. type is a tagged union: it selects the intent AND decides which other fields are read, so send only the fields its row needs. The plan is EXECUTED in the same call, so you receive the result (the resolved cell64, the similarity, the delta, the verdict), not a list of calls to make yourself.

An unknown or missing type returns a structured needs_intent_type envelope naming the seven values rather than a hard error, so you can correct it on the next turn.

When to use: Call when the user's question maps cleanly onto one of the seven rows above and you would rather state the goal than pick a primitive. Reach past it for anything else: a specific band at a cell is emem_recall, a region is emem_recall_polygon, and a free-text place question with no obvious primitive is emem_ask directly (type:"ask" here just forwards to it). window takes tslots, not dates: get valid ones from emem_trajectory first. A tool this router names but tools/list does not show is NOT a dead end: every one of the 107 dispatches by name at /mcp and /mcp/full, so call emem_trajectory or emem_recall_polygon directly. The core list is 16 to keep the per-request catalog small, not to fence the rest off; emem_tools enumerates them.

Example arguments: {"type":"did_change","cell":"damO.zb000.xUti.zde78","band":"indices.ndvi","window":[20245,20620]}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`a`	No	is_like only: cell64 of the first place in the pair.
`b`	No	is_like only: cell64 of the second place. The answer is a cosine similarity in [-1,1] over the two cells' embeddings.
`k`	No	find_like only: how many neighbours to return. Defaults to the primitive's own default when omitted.
`key`	No	find_like only: cell64 to search from. Neighbours are ranked by embedding cosine against this cell.
`lat`	No	ask only: latitude, paired with `lng`, when you want to pin the location by coordinate rather than by name or cell64.
`lng`	No	ask only: longitude, paired with `lat`.
`band`	No	did_change only: which band to test, e.g. "indices.ndvi". One band per call; the answer is a delta over `window`, not a whole-cell diff.
`cell`	No	cell64 address, e.g. "damO.zb000.xUti.zde78". Required by did_change and confirm. Optional for what_is_here and ask: supply it to skip geocoding, omit it and give `place` instead.
`type`	Yes	Which question you are asking, and therefore which other fields apply. where_is: name a place, get its cell64 (needs `description`). what_is_here: summarise a location (needs `cell`, OR `place`/`description` to resolve it first). is_like: pairwise similarity (needs `a` and `b`). did_change: did one band move over a time window (needs `cell`, `band`, `window`). find_like: nearest neighbours to a known cell (needs `key`; optional `k`, `filter`). confirm: is a claim true at a cell (needs `claim` and `cell`). ask: free-text question about a place, runs locate + topic-route + recall server-side (needs `description`; optional `place`/`cell`/`lat`+`lng` to pin the location).
`claim`	No	confirm only: the claim to test at `cell`, e.g. {"band":"indices.ndvi","op":"gt","value":0.4}. The answer is a verdict plus the signed facts it rests on.
`place`	No	Free-text place name for what_is_here and ask when you have a name but no cell64, e.g. "Ashok Nagar, Ranchi". The responder geocodes it. Ignored when `cell` is present.
`filter`	No	find_like only: optional claim constraining which cells may be returned. Same object as `claim` below, same ops, same required fields.
`window`	No	did_change only: exactly two tslots, [start, end], band-tempo-relative integers from the emem epoch (NOT unix seconds or a date string). Get valid tslots for a cell from emem_trajectory.
`description`	No	where_is: the place to resolve, e.g. "Mount Everest". ask: the user's question, forwarded verbatim. what_is_here: optional free text used as the question and, if `place` is absent, as the place. Ignored by the other intents.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint:false, idempotentHint:true, openWorldHint:true), the description discloses that the plan is EXECUTED in the same call, that unknown/missing type yields a needs_intent_type envelope rather than a hard error, and that every named tool dispatches by name at /mcp and /mcp/full even if not shown in tools/list. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Although long, every sentence earns its place: the table condenses seven intents, the 'When to use' paragraph removes ambiguity, and the example anchors the schema. The structure (table, when-to-use, example) makes it scannable despite the length.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating the return envelope ('the resolved cell64, the similarity, the delta, the verdict') and the error shape (needs_intent_type). It also covers edge cases (unknown type, hidden tools, tslot source), making it fully self-sufficient for a complex 14-parameter tagged union.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a compact table mapping each intent to required/optional fields and answer shape, clarifies that fields for other intents are ignored (tagged union), and gives a concrete example. It also explains tslot semantics (band-tempo-relative, from emem_trajectory) beyond the schema.

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 crystal-clear statement: 'Say what you want in one typed object and get the answer, without choosing a primitive.' It then distinguishes the tagged-union dispatcher from sibling primitives by naming exact alternatives (emem_recall, emem_recall_polygon, emem_ask) and gives the scope of each intent row in the table.

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?

There is an explicit 'When to use' section: 'Call when the user's question maps cleanly onto one of the seven rows above and you would rather state the goal than pick a primitive. Reach past it for anything else.' It names the alternatives, explains the unknown-type behavior (structured needs_intent_type envelope), and gives concrete guidance about tslots and hidden tools.

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 tools Inspect

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).

Intent-routed planner

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources