cellmath

vault_write_cell

[PRIVATE WRITE - HIGH-LEVEL VAULT] Store a verified 1.0 Axiom (Fact, Skill, or Lesson) into the multi-tenant vault. High-level DB intake tool. Returns { success: true, item: {...}, action: "CREATED"|"MERGED" }. Side effects: Creates permanent, non-expiring knowledge assets.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "vault_write_cell"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No	Tags for categorical indexing.
`type`	No		fact
`title`	Yes	Concise node title.
`content`	Yes	Full verified text or structured content.
`user_confirmed`	No	Required for 1.0 promotion.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / content / description

Previous value: -"Full verified content (stored in disk sidecar)."New value: +"Full verified text or structured content."

addedInput schema / properties / tags / description
```
Added value: +"Tags for categorical indexing."
```

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that the tool creates permanent, non-expiring knowledge assets and returns success, item, and CREATED or MERGED action. It still omits permission, tenant-isolation, and merge-condition details.

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?

Front-loads the private-write warning and core purpose, then compactly states return shape and side effects. It is dense but mostly earns its space, aside from some jargon like '1.0 Axiom' that requires context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers the write side effects and response shape despite having no output schema, but it leaves gaps for a multi-tenant permanent write tool: no guidance on selection versus sibling write tools and no explanation of tenant or permission implications.

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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning around verified 1.0 promotion and Fact/Skill/Lesson types, but it omits the schema's 'preference' enum value and does not explain user_confirmed or tags beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: store a verified 1.0 Axiom into the vault, with examples Fact, Skill, or Lesson. It is not explicitly differentiated from vault_write_hypothesis or promote_hypothesis, but the 'verified 1.0 Axiom' framing implies the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies use only for verified, promoted knowledge ('verified 1.0 Axiom') and calls itself the high-level DB intake tool, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus vault_write_hypothesis or when not to use it.

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

All cellmath 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.

Resources

Need Help?