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 indicate it's a write operation with idempotentHint=true. The description adds scope (key-value by identifier), persistence details (authenticated vs anonymous), and mentions pairing with recall/forget. No contradictions with annotations.

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, well-structured, and every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently covers usage, behavior, and pairing.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavioral traits, and context. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds example values like 'subject_property' and 'target_ticker', providing extra guidance beyond the schema.

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 verb 'save', resource 'data', and context 'across this conversation or across sessions'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'recall' and 'forget' later.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when you discover something worth carrying forward'. It also suggests pairing with recall/forget. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the mentioned siblings.

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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly described distinct purposes, but a few near-duplicates exist: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical right now, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap. The polymarket sub-family also has multiple edge/fill tools that could be confused.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is varied but readable. Many tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, search_within, subscribe), yet several are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges, bet_research, pipeworx_feedback). There's no single coherent pattern, but the mixture is not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the server is oversized for typical MCP coherence. The breadth is broad (prediction markets, healthcare datasets, memory, subscriptions), but such a large count forces agents to filter through many utilities (suggest_questions, discover_tools, generate_llms_txt) that could be consolidated or hidden.

Completeness4/5

The domain—data querying and analysis—is well covered: universal routing (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, dataset metadata, subscriptions, prediction-market edge checks, and memory tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct health-care-specific analytics batch or file download), but no major dead ends for core workflows.