MMW

Check memory freshness

validate_memory

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate one source manifest hash and report stale/conflicting memories.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	Optional scope filter
`source_id`	No	Identifier of the source entity being validated
`workspace`	No	Workspace to inspect memories within	default
`current_source_hash`	No	Fresh cryptographic hash of the current source content

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`checked`	Yes	Number of memories evaluated
`source_id`	Yes	Source identifier that was validated
`stale_ids`	No	List of memory IDs whose hash differs from current
`tenant_id`	No	Tenant identifier
`workspace`	Yes	Target workspace name
`api_version`	No	API version of the memory server
`stale_count`	Yes	Total count of stale memories
`conflict_ids`	No	List of memory IDs with fact conflicts
`conflict_count`	Yes	Total count of conflicting memories
`current_source_hash`	Yes	Current expected content hash

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedOct 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / api_version / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / api_version / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / api_version / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / tenant_id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / tenant_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedOutput schema / properties / tenant_id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "api_version",
-  "workspace",
-  "tenant_id",
-  "source_id",
-  "current_source_hash",
-  "checked",
-  "stale_count",
-  "conflict_count"
-]New value: +[
+  "workspace",
+  "source_id",
+  "current_source_hash",
+  "checked",
+  "stale_count",
+  "conflict_count"
+]

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it operates on exactly one source hash and reports stale/conflicting results, but says nothing about failure modes or what a stale/conflicting verdict implies for follow-up actions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, its scope, and its output are stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gap is guidance on when this tool should be chosen over its siblings.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The phrase 'one source manifest hash' hints at a single-source pairing of source_id with current_source_hash but adds no format or pairing detail 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?

The description names a specific verb (validate) and resource (source manifest hash) and states the outcome (report stale/conflicting memories). It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like search or remember, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: validating a source hash after content changes to detect stale memories. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the siblings (search, remember, forget).

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

All MMW tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?