Skip to main content
Glama

emem, the verifiable memory protocol for the physical world

by io.github.Vortx-AI

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoMulti-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.
purposeNoOptional human-readable purpose string. Included in the bundle_cid preimage so the same triples + different purposes produce distinct CIDs.
triplesYesOne 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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes far beyond them. It discloses that the responder signs over the full receipt, the bundle_token format, offline verifiability via /v1/verify_receipt, partial-resolution visibility via members/resolved, and CID preimage behavior with purpose. This is rich behavioral context crucial for an agent invoking the tool.

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 structured with a clear opening, a 'When to use' section, and an example. It is longer than average, but the complexity of the tool merits detail. The 'Memory algebra: merge operation' link is somewhat cryptic and not integrated, slightly reducing conciseness, but overall every major sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains expected response fields (members and resolved) and verification via verify_receipt. It covers scope application, partial resolution, limits, and alternative tools. For a complex nested-object tool with no output schema, this description is unusually complete and actionable.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (scope, purpose, triples) already well described including the 256 cap and typed-400 failure. The description adds a practical example arguments block but does not materially introduce new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Compose N (cell, band, tslot?) triples into ONE signed envelope.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly stating to use this 'instead of N separate emem_memory_token composers' when the citation is conceptually one thing. The title and body both reinforce a distinct, well-scoped purpose.

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?

A dedicated 'When to use' section explicitly states: 'Call when the agent wants to cite multiple (place, band, vintage) facts as one handle.' It also names the alternative (N separate emem_memory_token composers) and provides a concrete example ('EUDR-relevant baseline for these 8 plots'). It adds practical constraints like the 256-triple cap and round-trip planning advice.

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