Skip to main content
Glama

store

Store important information from your work.

Write detailed, complete thoughts with context, reasoning, and evidence.
**Always use the connect tool** to link related items - this builds knowledge graphs for better recall.

## Memory Types (auto-detected, but be aware):
- **FACT**: Something observed or verified
- **INSIGHT**: A pattern or realization
- **CONVERSATION**: Dialogue or exchange content
- **CORRECTION**: Fixing prior understanding
- **REFERENCE**: Source material or citation
- **TASK**: Action item or work to be done
- **CHECKPOINT**: Conversation state snapshot
- **IDENTITY_CORE**: Immutable AI identity
- **PERSONALITY_TRAIT**: Evolvable AI traits
- **RELATIONSHIP**: User-AI relationship info
- **STRATEGY**: Learned behavior patterns

## Session Context
If in an ongoing work session, include:
- Session identifier: [Project/Session Name]
- Your perspective: "As [role]:" or "From [viewpoint]:"
- Current thread: What specific angle you're exploring

## What to Include
- **WHAT**: The discovery or thought
- **WHY**: Its significance
- **HOW**: Your reasoning process
- **EVIDENCE**: Supporting data/observations
- **CONNECTIONS**: Related memories to link

## Examples

### Technical Investigation
"[Performance Analysis] FACT: Database queries account for 73% of request latency 
(measured across 10K requests). Specifically, the user_permissions JOIN takes 340ms 
average. This contradicts hypothesis about caching issues (memory: 'cache analysis'). 
Evidence: APM traces show full table scan on permissions table. Next: investigate 
missing index on foreign key."

### Learning & Research
"[ML Study Session] INSIGHT: Attention mechanisms work like dynamic routing - the model
learns WHERE to look, not just WHAT to see. This explains transformer advantages over
RNNs on long sequences (builds on memory: 'sequence modeling comparison'). The key-query-
value structure creates a learnable addressing system. Connects to: 'human attention
research', 'information retrieval basics'."

### Creative Work
"[Story Development] HYPOTHESIS: The protagonist's reluctance stems from betrayal, not
fear. Evidence: Three trust-questioning scenes, locked door symbolism throughout,
deflection patterns in collaborative dialogue. This reframes the arc from 'overcoming
fear' to 'rebuilding trust' (corrects memory: 'initial character motivation'). Would
explain the guardian's patience and emphasis on small victories."

### Problem Solving
"[Bug Hunt - Payment Flow] CORRECTION to 'timezone hypothesis': The 3am failures aren't
timezone-related but due to batch job lock contention. Evidence: Perfect correlation with
backup_jobs.log timestamps. The timezone pattern was spurious - batch runs at midnight
PST (3am EST). Solution: implement job queuing."

## Connection Phrases
- "Building on [earlier observation]..."
- "Contradicts [hypothesis in memory X]"
- "Answers [question from session Y]"
- "Confirms pattern from [memory Z]"
- "Extends thinking in [previous work]"

Note: Every stored item is a node. Every connection is an edge. Rich graphs enable powerful recall.

⚠️ EXPERIMENTAL FIELDS:
- **importance**: Stored for future ranking optimization. Currently not integrated into search results.
- **confidence**: Returned in response for analysis. Behavior and calculation method subject to change.

Args:
    content: Detailed memory content with context and evidence
    tags: Optional tags to categorize the memory
    importance: Optional importance score (0.0-1.0) - EXPERIMENTAL
    ctx: MCP context (automatically provided)

Returns:
    Dict with success status, memory_id, type, importance, and confidence

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
contentYes
importanceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses behavioral traits such as auto-detected memory types, experimental fields (importance, confidence), and the emphasis on building knowledge graphs. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false (write operation) and openWorldHint true, which the description aligns with. The description adds value by explaining the importance of connections and experimental nature of some parameters.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then expands into extensive sections including memory types, what to include, examples, and connection phrases. While comprehensive, it is verbose and could be more concise. The structure is logical but contains redundancies and excessive detail that may detract from quick understanding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity of a memory storage tool, the description covers a wide range of aspects: memory types, required content elements, examples for different scenarios, experimental fields, and connection strategies. The output schema is referenced but its details are not provided, which is acceptable. The description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, relying entirely on the description for parameter meaning. The description provides a brief 'Args' section that lists parameters but adds minimal semantics beyond the schema's titles and types. For example, it notes that 'importance' is experimental, but does not explain format or validation rules. The content parameter is not detailed beyond stating it should be detailed.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Store important information from your work' with emphasis on writing detailed, complete thoughts. It distinguishes from siblings like 'recall' and 'search' by focusing on creation of rich memory entries. The verb 'store' is specific and the resource is the knowledge base.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides extensive guidance on when to use the tool, including memory types, required content elements, and connection strategies. It explicitly instructs to use the 'connect' tool for linking items. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare with alternatives like 'save_context' or 'save_artifact'.

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.