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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: key-value pair scoped by identifier, persistence for authenticated users (persistent) vs anonymous (24 hours). Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description complements without contradiction.

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 description is a single dense paragraph covering purpose, usage, behavior, and pairing. It is well-structured but could be slightly more concise.

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?

For a simple tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, persistence, and tool pairing. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and use 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%, and the description provides example values for both 'key' and 'value', adding practical meaning beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Save data the agent will need to reuse later' and provides concrete examples (resolved ticker, target address, user preference, research subject). It clearly distinguishes between sibling tools like 'recall' and 'forget'.

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 advises to 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' and pairs with 'recall to retrieve later, forget to delete'. While it gives clear context, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but the cluster of Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar, causing potential confusion. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) also add some overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, which is consistent. However, the similar Pipeworx tools have confusingly similar names (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs ask_pipeworx_beta), and the naming does not clearly distinguish their differences.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the set is too large for a server ostensibly focused on Yu-Gi-Oh! cards. The majority of tools are unrelated domain-agnostic data tools, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The Yu-Gi-Oh! card tools are limited to lookup and search, missing obvious operations like creating or updating cards. The unrelated data tools, while many, do not form a coherent set for a single purpose, leaving gaps in both directions.