Skip to main content
Glama

Mnemoverse Memory

by io.github.mnemoverse
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

memory_feedback

Report whether memories returned by memory_read were actually helpful. This is a learning signal, not a log: positive feedback raises a memory's ranking so it surfaces faster next time (across all of the user's tools), negative feedback lowers it so other memories out-rank it — nothing is erased and nothing decays with time. Use it after an answer that relied on or rejected memories from memory_read: pass the ids of those memories as memory_ids, with outcome 1 when they helped and -1 when they were wrong or stale. For memories read from a shared room, also pass that room's address as domain; your own memories need no domain. A read-only room member cannot rate the room's memories.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoOnly for memories read from a shared room: that room's address (xroom:...), exactly as you read it. Omit it for your own memories, which are rated by id alone.
outcomeYesHow helpful was this? 1.0 = very helpful, 0 = neutral, -1.0 = harmful/wrong
memory_idsYesIDs of the memories to rate, the `id:` line of each memory_read result.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
avg_valenceNoAverage valence of the rated memories after the update. Reported as 0 in an asynchronous acknowledgement, where the real value is computed later — a 0 here is therefore not evidence of a neutral outcome.
updated_countYesHow many memories the service reports it applied the rating to. Processed synchronously this is the real count of memories that existed and were updated; processed asynchronously it is a best-effort ACCEPTED-count estimate — the number of IDs submitted — and the authoritative number is not known until the background worker runs. Zero means no submitted ID matched in the service's resolved request scope.
coactivation_edgesNoNumber of links between query concepts and result concepts that this rating changed. This connector does not send query_concepts, so live calls through this tool report 0; asynchronous acknowledgements also report 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / coactivation_edges / description
      Previous value: -"Number of feedback-driven query/result concept co-activation edges changed by the service. This is separate from ordinary Hebbian strengthening among a memory's own concepts. This connector does not send query_concepts, so live calls through this tool report 0; asynchronous acknowledgements also report 0."New value: +"Number of links between query concepts and result concepts that this rating changed. This connector does not send query_concepts, so live calls through this tool report 0; asynchronous acknowledgements also report 0."
  3. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / atom_ids
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Deprecated since 0.11, removed in 0.13: atom_ids is the old name of memory_ids, still accepted on its own until then. Pass memory_ids instead.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "minItems": 1,
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / memory_ids / description
      Previous value: -"Required: IDs of the memories to rate, the `id:` line of each memory_read result. (Optional in this schema only while the deprecated atom_ids is still accepted in its place.)"New value: +"IDs of the memories to rate, the `id:` line of each memory_read result."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "outcome"
-]New value: +[
+  "memory_ids",
+  "outcome"
+]
  4. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / atom_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Deprecated since 0.11, removed in 0.13: atom_ids is the old name of memory_ids, still accepted on its own until then. Pass memory_ids instead.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only for memories read from a shared room: that room's address (xroom:...), exactly as you read it. Omit it for your own memories, which are rated by id alone.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / memory_ids / description
      Previous value: -"Personal-scope memory IDs from a prior memory_read. Shared-room IDs cannot currently be rated because this tool has no domain input."New value: +"Required: IDs of the memories to rate, the `id:` line of each memory_read result. (Optional in this schema only while the deprecated atom_ids is still accepted in its place.)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / memory_ids / items / format
      Removed value: -"uuid"
    • removedInput schema / properties / memory_ids / items / pattern
      Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
    • removedInput schema / properties / memory_ids / maxItems
      Removed value: -20
    • changedInput schema / properties / outcome / description
      Previous value: -"Outcome signal: -1.0 (failure) to +1.0 (success)."New value: +"How helpful was this? 1.0 = very helpful, 0 = neutral, -1.0 = harmful/wrong"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "memory_ids",
-  "outcome"
-]New value: +[
+  "outcome"
+]
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description goes much further, disclosing that positive feedback raises ranking across all of the user's tools, negative lowers it, and that 'nothing is erased and nothing decays with time.' It also flags the permission constraint on shared rooms, which no annotation conveys.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the three-sentence body covers signal semantics, usage, and permissions with little waste. It is slightly dense and repeats the outcome values the schema already lists, which costs it the top score.

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?

For a 3-param mutation with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: the semantic effect of the call, when to invoke it, how to pass each parameter, and the permission edge case. Return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: memory_ids are the id lines from memory_read results, outcome is tied to the helpful/wrong judgment, and domain is scoped to shared rooms with the explicit note that own memories need none. This goes modestly beyond the schema's own wording.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('report whether memories returned by memory_read were actually helpful') and ties the tool directly to the sibling memory_read, distinguishing it from memory_write/memory_create_room etc. An agent knows immediately this is a feedback/ranking signal, not a retrieval or write tool.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('after an answer that relied on or rejected memories from memory_read'), how to call it (pass ids as memory_ids, outcome 1 or -1), and the conditional case (pass domain only for shared-room memories; own memories need no domain). It even states a precondition/exclusion: a read-only room member cannot rate the room's memories.

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

All Mnemoverse Memory toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources