Skip to main content
Glama

Remember

remember
Idempotent

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: memory is scoped by the agent's identifier, authenticated users get persistent memory, and anonymous sessions retain data for 24 hours. This is useful behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't explicitly mention overwrite semantics for duplicate keys, which is a minor gap given idempotent hints.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise yet information-dense, front-loading the main action ('Save data the agent will need to reuse later') and following with specific use cases, storage mechanics, persistence rules, and sibling tool pairings. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler or repetition of the title.

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 simple write tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, storage semantics (key-value, scoped), persistence behavior (auth vs. anonymous), and how it relates to recall and forget. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to successfully select and invoke this tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides—both 'key' and 'value' are fully explained with examples in the schema, and the description's examples (ticker, address, preferences) mirror those in the schema without adding new format or constraint information.

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 saves data for later reuse, using the specific verb 'Save' and resource 'key-value pair'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming 'recall' for retrieval and 'forget' for deletion, making its unique role in the memory trio unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' and lists concrete examples (resolved ticker, target address, user preference, research subject). It also clarifies when to use alternatives by instructing to pair with 'recall' to retrieve and 'forget' to delete, establishing a clear decision framework.

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.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language data questions. The six Polymarket/prediction-market tools also blur together, and ai_visibility_check versus scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Snake_case is used consistently, and most tools follow a verb-first or domain-prefixed pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile, resource_data, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first, but nothing is chaotic or mixed-cased.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Data Gov In' whose actual domain-specific surface is only resource_data and resource_meta. The rest are generic Pipeworx, prediction-market, memory, and utility tools that do not belong to the apparent India open-data scope.

Completeness1/5

For a data.gov.in server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no way to search or list datasets/resources, only fetch metadata and data for a known resourceId. The overwhelming majority of tools serve unrelated domains, so an agent using this server for Indian government data will hit dead ends immediately.