memory_write
Write to agent memory
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| agentId | Yes |
Write to agent memory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| agentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'write', implying mutation, but fails to disclose whether existing keys are overwritten, if the write is persistent, any permission requirements, or other side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no redundancy, which is structurally concise. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification, and the sentence could be somewhat more explanatory without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain parameter semantics, return values, error conditions, or behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no meaning for agentId, key, or value. The agent is left to guess the role and format of each parameter, so the description adds no value beyond the bare property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Write to agent memory' clearly identifies the action (write) and resource (agent memory), and naturally contrasts with the sibling tool memory_read. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's purpose, though the term 'agent memory' is slightly generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_read or any other alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one reads memory, one writes memory. There is no ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (memory_read, memory_write), making the naming predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal. While appropriate for a simple memory store, it is on the borderline of being too thin for a full-featured toolset.
The server provides read and write operations but lacks delete or clear functionality, which is a notable gap in memory lifecycle management. Agents cannot remove specific memories or reset the memory store.