Skip to main content
Glama

emem, the verifiable memory protocol for the physical world

What tools exist here, and when to reach for each

emem_tools
Read-onlyIdempotent

The map of emem's tool surface, and the only tool you need to find the rest. Returns the working loop in the order you walk it (name a thing, ground it, cite it, resolve it, verify it, check for drift), then every other tool grouped by the question it answers, each with its one-line trigger. Pass name to get one tool's full input schema and a runnable example, so you can use a tool without loading all of the descriptors into context. IF YOU ARE READING A LIST OF 16 TOOLS, YOU ARE SEEING A CURATED SUBSET OF 108, NOT THE WHOLE SURFACE. The count is served in tools/list _meta and _discovery, and most MCP hosts strip non-standard top-level fields before a model sees them, so it is repeated HERE — a description is the one field every host passes through. The Earth-observation, search, embedding and transparency-log tools are catalogued by this tool and every one of them stays callable by name through tools/call at either endpoint.

When to use: Call this FIRST when you do not know which emem tool answers the question, or when you need a capability you cannot see in your tool list. This responder advertises a small core loop by default rather than its full catalog, so a tool being absent from your list does not mean it is absent from the server. Pass q to search by topic (ndvi, cloud, flood, verify), name for one tool's exact schema, or no arguments for the whole map. If you want the full catalog registered as callable tools instead, reconnect to the /mcp/full endpoint; for a one-shot answer without picking a primitive at all, use emem_ask.

Example arguments: {"q":"ndvi"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoFree-text filter over tool names, titles and trigger text, e.g. `ndvi`, `cloud`, `flood`, `verify`, `token`. Plain lowercased substring over name + title + description + trigger text, not fuzzy and not stemmed: `ndvi` hits, `vegetation index` only hits tools that spell that phrase. Combines with `shape`/`bundle`/`category`/`tier` as AND, so an over-narrow combination answers with an empty catalog rather than an error.
nameNoReturn the full descriptor for exactly this tool (input schema, runnable example, annotations), e.g. `emem_ndvi`. Use this when you already know the name and want its schema without loading the whole catalog. It SHORT-CIRCUITS: when `name` is set every other argument here is ignored, so `{name, q}` is not a search within one tool. A name this responder does not carry is not an error status, you get a body with `did_you_mean` holding up to five names that share a substring with what you asked for.
tierNoWhich slice to list. Defaults to `all`, so this tool shows the whole surface even when the endpoint advertises only the core loop, and an `extended` tool you find here is callable by name through tools/call whether or not your host listed it. Pass `core` to see only what a default connection advertises.
shapeNoFilter by what the answer looks like, which is usually the real question. `scalar` is one number at one address; `raster` is a gridded field over an area; `timeseries` is a value per timestep; `vector` is a learned embedding; `identity` is a canonical name for a thing; `token` is a citation handle; `proof` checks one.
bundleNoFilter by the job you are doing. Call with no arguments first to see each bundle and its size.
categoryNoFilter to one category. This is about the shape of the job, NOT about safety: 13 tools outside `write` declare `readOnlyHint: false` because reading a cold address can materialise or mint as a side effect, so `category: "read"` is not a safe-tools filter. Read each result's `annotations.readOnlyHint` for that.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the responder advertises only a small core loop by default, absent-from-list does not mean absent-from-server, name short-circuits other arguments, unknown names return did_you_mean rather than an error, and category 'read' is not a safety filter because reads can materialize side effects. 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?

The description is long but dense and front-loaded: it opens with purpose, then gives behavioral caveats, then usage guidance. Every sentence carries strategic value, including the uppercase note about the 16-tool curated subset and the meta-explanation of why the count is repeated in the description. The structure clearly separates 'what it returns,' 'when to use,' and example arguments.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect: the working loop in order, all tools grouped by question with one-line triggers, and the ability to request a single tool's full schema and example. It also covers edge cases like over-narrow filter combinations returning empty catalogs, name short-circuiting, and the distinction between this endpoint and /mcp/full. This is complete for a discovery tool of this complexity.

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 strategic meaning beyond the schema by explaining when to pass q, name, or no arguments, and by framing shape as 'what the answer looks like, which is usually the real question.' It reinforces the short-circuit behavior and did_you_mean fallback, which the schema already documents but the description makes more actionable.

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 identifies this as the discovery/map tool for emem's entire tool surface: 'The map of emem's tool surface, and the only tool you need to find the rest.' It names the specific verb+resource (returns catalog, grouped by question, with triggers) and distinguishes itself from siblings like emem_ask by stating it is the routing tool rather than an answer primitive.

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?

Contains an explicit 'When to use' paragraph: call it FIRST when you don't know which tool answers the question or need a capability not visible in the tool list. It also states when not to use it: reconnect to /mcp/full for the full catalog registered as callable tools, or use emem_ask for a one-shot answer without picking a primitive.

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

Try in Browser

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).