emem, the verifiable memory protocol for the physical world

Compose a signed multi-fact memory bundle

emem_memory_bundle

Compose N (cell, band, tslot?) triples into ONE signed envelope. Each triple runs through the standard auto-materialize recall path; the resulting fact_cids are bundled into a content-addressed envelope and the responder signs over the full receipt. The composed bundle_token is emem:bundle:<bundle_cid>, a single rebindable string that cites the whole set. Memory algebra: the merge operation (https://emem.dev/docs/model.html).

When to use: Call when the agent wants to cite multiple (place, band, vintage) facts as one handle. The bundle stays verifiable offline via /v1/verify_receipt (the receipt covers all cited fact_cids and cells). Use this instead of N separate emem_memory_token composers when the citation is conceptually one thing (e.g. "the EUDR-relevant baseline for these 8 plots at 2020-12-31"). Caps at 256 triples per call, and the response reports members and resolved so a bundle that only partly resolved is visible without walking every citation.

Example arguments: {"triples":[{"cell":"defi.zb4d9.pefa.zf619","band":"copdem30m.elevation_mean"},{"cell":"defi.zb493.xoso.zcb6a","band":"indices.ndvi"}],"purpose":"audit baseline 2026"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	Multi-tenant scope `{user_id, agent_id, run_id, org_id}`, applied to EVERY triple's underlying recall so the whole bundle cites only facts written under that four-tuple.
`purpose`	No	Optional human-readable purpose string. Included in the bundle_cid preimage so the same triples + different purposes produce distinct CIDs.
`triples`	No	One to 256 (cell, band, tslot?) triples to bundle. Each entry is recalled through the standard auto-materialize path; the bundle envelope cites every resulting fact_cid. 257 or more is a typed 400: the token is O(1) in size for any N, but covering N facts costs ceil(N/256) calls, so plan round trips rather than meeting the cap mid-run.
`fact_cids`	No	Instead of triples: the exact facts to bind, by cid. A triple is resolved through recall and can bind a newer fact than the one you showed; a cid binds that fact and no other. Pass triples or fact_cids, not both.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fact_cids

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Instead of triples: the exact facts to bind, by cid. A triple is resolved through recall and can bind a newer fact than the one you showed; a cid binds that fact and no other. Pass triples or fact_cids, not both.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 256,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "triples"
-]
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / scope

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Multi-tenant scope `{user_id, agent_id, run_id, org_id}`, applied to EVERY triple's underlying recall so the whole bundle cites only facts written under that four-tuple.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / triples / description

Previous value: -"One or more (cell, band, tslot?) triples to bundle. Each entry is recalled through the standard auto-materialize path; the bundle envelope cites every resulting fact_cid."New value: +"One to 256 (cell, band, tslot?) triples to bundle. Each entry is recalled through the standard auto-materialize path; the bundle envelope cites every resulting fact_cid. 257 or more is a typed 400: the token is O(1) in size for any N, but covering N facts costs ceil(N/256) calls, so plan round trips rather than meeting the cap mid-run."

addedInput schema / properties / triples / maxItems
```
Added value: +256
```

AddedMay 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the signing/responder behavior, offline verifiability via /v1/verify_receipt, the auto-materialize recall path, O(1) token size with N/256 round trips, and `members`/`resolved` output so partial resolution is visible. This goes well beyond the minimal annotations and does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the core operation, then gives a clear 'When to use' section, constraints, and a representative example. The 'Memory algebra: the merge operation' link is somewhat incidental and unexplained, keeping it from being perfectly economical.

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?

Even without an output schema, the agent learns what the call returns or produces: a bundle_token, a signed receipt covering fact_cids and cells, and `members`/`resolved` fields. Limits, verification path, distinction from alternatives, and an example are all present, so the tool can be invoked correctly without further context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents `scope`, `purpose`, `triples`, and `fact_cids` including exclusivity, formats, and limits. The description's example arguments are handy but mostly restate schema semantics rather than adding new parameter meaning, so the high-coverage baseline applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: compose (cell, band, tslot?) triples into one signed envelope and produce an `emem:bundle:<bundle_cid>` token. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `emem_memory_token` single-fact composer, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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?

An explicit 'When to use' section says to call this when multiple facts should be cited as one handle and to prefer it over N separate `emem_memory_token` composers when the citation is conceptually one thing. The 256-triple cap and round-trip planning note provide actionable boundary conditions.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Compose a signed multi-fact memory bundle

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources