Skip to main content
Glama

nucleus

by io.github.eidetic-works

Memory & Engrams

nucleus_engrams

Engrams, health, observability, DSoR & tier system tools.

Actions: health - Get system health status version - Get Nucleus version info export_schema - Export MCP toolset as JSON Schema performance_metrics - Get perf metrics. params: {export_to_file?} prometheus_metrics - Get Prometheus metrics. params: {format?} audit_log - View cryptographic interaction log. params: {limit?} write_engram - Write engram to memory. params: {key, value, context?, intensity?}. context: Feature|Architecture|Brand|Strategy|Decision. intensity: 1-10. (alias: "add") query_engrams - Query engrams. params: {context?, min_intensity?, limit?}. limit default 50, max 500. search_engrams - Search engrams. params: {query, case_sensitive?, limit?}. limit default 50, max 500. (alias: "search") governance_status - Get governance status morning_brief - Daily Nucleus Morning Brief hook_metrics - Monitor auto-write engram hooks compounding_status - Compounding Loop status end_of_day - Capture EOD learnings. params: {summary, key_decisions?, blockers?} session_inject - Session-start context injection weekly_consolidate - Weekly consolidation. params: {dry_run?} list_decisions - List DecisionMade events. params: {limit?} list_snapshots - List context snapshots. params: {limit?} metering_summary - Token metering summary. params: {since_hours?} ipc_tokens - List IPC auth tokens. params: {active_only?} dsor_status - Comprehensive DSoR status pulse_and_polish - God Combo: automated health check pipeline. params: {write_engram?}. Runs prometheus→audit→brief→engram. self_healing_sre - God Combo: SRE diagnosis pipeline. params: {symptom, write_engram?}. Runs search→metrics→diagnose→recommend. fusion_reactor - God Combo: self-reinforcing memory loop. params: {observation, context?, intensity?, write_engrams?}. Compounds knowledge. context_graph - Build engram relationship graph. params: {include_edges?, min_intensity?}. Returns nodes, edges, clusters. engram_neighbors - Get neighborhood of an engram. params: {key, max_depth?}. BFS traversal of context graph. billing_summary - Usage cost tracking from audit logs. params: {since_hours?, group_by?}. group_by: tool|tier|session. render_graph - ASCII visualization of engram context graph. params: {max_nodes?, min_intensity?}. federation_dsor - Federation DSoR status routing_decisions - Query routing decision history. params: {limit?} list_tools - List tools at current tier. params: {category?} tier_status - Get tier configuration status dsor_query_decisions- Query the DSoR decision ledger. params: {limit?} dsor_get_trace - Get full provenance trace for a decision. params: {decision_id} heartbeat_check - Proactive context-triggered check-in. params: {notify?, brain_path?}. Checks stale blockers/decisions, velocity drops, session gaps. heartbeat_status - Get heartbeat daemon installation status. params: {brain_path?}. Shows install state + recent check history.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not clarify the read-write nature of each sub-action. Terms like 'God Combo' are ambiguous and do not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral traits beyond annotations are minimally addressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy due to listing over 30 sub-actions, which is appropriate for the tool's scope. However, the structure is a flat list that could benefit from grouping or a summary table. It is front-loaded with a one-line overview, but overall conciseness is compromised by the enumeration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's high complexity (many sub-actions, some with output details like context_graph), the description provides enough for basic understanding. However, many actions lack return value descriptions or behavioral nuance, and the presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description. It is minimally complete.

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?

The input schema is generic (action + params), but the description compensates by detailing parameters for most sub-actions (e.g., write_engram params: key, value, context?, intensity?). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, despite a lack of formal parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly lists many sub-actions with brief explanations, making it clear that this tool is a collection of memory, health, observability, and system administration functions. The title 'Memory & Engrams' provides some focus, but the broad scope is well-articulated through the action list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., nucleus_agents, nucleus_audit). The description does not indicate which actions belong exclusively here or when to prefer a sibling tool, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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

All nucleus 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists (e.g., multiple relay-related tools like nucleus_relay, nucleus_relay_subscribe, nucleus_next_message). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, and descriptions help disambiguate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the 'nucleus_' prefix with a consistent noun-like second part (e.g., nucleus_agents, nucleus_audit, nucleus_delegate). Even compound names like nucleus_lane_feedback maintain the pattern, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

With 28 tools, the count is on the higher end but still justifiable given the broad scope of an agent operating system. The tools cover many necessary functions, though the set could be slightly trimmed for focus.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most aspects of an agent OS: agents, audit, delegation, memory, features, federation, governance, infra, lanes, messaging, orchestration, plans, relay, routing, sessions, slots, sync, tasks, telemetry. Minor gaps like a dedicated config tool are absent but not critical.

Resources