Renor

Append a daily note

remember_note

Destructive

Appends one line to a day's log: text is the line, e.g. remember_note({"text": "Ran the nightly build; two flaky tests in the importer."}). Do not save passwords, API keys or tokens. Timestamped, filed under today or date, and indexed at once, so search finds it before any index_memory (the receipt's indexed says whether that worked; if not, the line is still saved and keyword search finds it). The receipt's id is what read_memory, retire_memory and restore_memory take. A line over 4,000 characters, one that is not valid Unicode, or one holding a control character (U+0000 to U+001F except tab, newline and carriage return, or U+007F) is refused, never cut, and nothing is written. remember saves a statement on its own the same way and is the default; use this when the line belongs to another day. replaces (the id of an earlier note or entry this line corrects) works as in remember.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD (default today: in timezone when it is given, else in UTC)
`text`	Yes	The line to log, in plain words.
`cites`	No	Optional, never required. What this save builds on: the notePath (or memory id) of a note a read returned, or the subject of a fact it returned. Lets Renor tell that reading helped.
`scope`	No	"global" (default) or project:<slug>, e.g. project:atlas.
`source`	No	Name of the app or agent saving this, for example claude-code. Leave it out to use the connecting client. Never a file path or document name.
`replaces`	No	Optional. The id (entry:<path>#<hash> or note:<path>) of the earlier memory this save corrects, from memory_map with a query or an earlier save's receipt. Renor then marks that memory replaced and points to this one, so a later recall puts this first. Nothing is deleted: retire this save to undo it. For a fact, save it again with the same subject, predicate and scope instead.
`timezone`	No	Optional. The user's time zone: an IANA name ("America/Sao_Paulo") or a UTC offset ("-03:00"). A note is then filed under the user's own day and stamped with their local time; without it, under the UTC day and time. A fact keeps its exact moment either way.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`ok`	Yes
`file`	Yes
`index`	No
`scope`	Yes
`detail`	No
`indexed`	No
`warning`	No
`replaced`	No
`replacesIgnored`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "detail": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "file": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "index": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "errors": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "failure": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "indexed": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "total": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "total",
+        "indexed",
+        "errors"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "indexed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "replaced": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "by": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "id",
+        "by"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "replacesIgnored": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scope": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "warning": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "file",
+    "scope"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive write, but the description adds substantial context: immediate indexing, what happens if indexing fails (line still saved and keyword search finds it), validation refusal with no write, the receipt id's role for read/retire/restore, and the atomic nature of oversized or invalid input. These are behavioral details annotations alone do not convey.

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 core action and example are front-loaded, and most sentences carry operational detail. It is somewhat dense for a single-append tool, but no sentence is clearly filler; the caveats about validation, indexing failure, and `replaces` each earn their 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?

Even with an output schema present, the description covers the failure modes, indexing behavior, secret-handling caution, cross-tool id usage, and the distinction from `remember`. For a 7-parameter destructive write tool, an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret its receipt.

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 still adds meaning beyond the schema: an example of `text`, the consequence of exceeding 4,000 characters (refused, not cut), invalid Unicode and control-character rejection, and how `replaces` corrects an earlier entry without deletion. It does not cover every parameter (`cites`, `scope`, `source`, `timezone`), but the added behavioral semantics justify above baseline.

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 and resource: 'Appends one line to a day's log.' It then explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling `remember`, stating that `remember` is the default for standalone statements and this should be used when the line belongs to another day. An agent can select it confidently without opening the schema.

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?

It names the alternative (`remember`) and the exact condition that selects this tool: when the line belongs to another day. It also warns against saving secrets and explains how `replaces` works in relation to `remember`, leaving little to inference.

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

All Renor tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.