bettermemory

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

episode_promote

Promote a journal entry into durable memory when a takeaway becomes a lasting fact. Routes through memory_write with dedup and scope checks, deleting the source episode upon successful commit.

Instructions

Promote a journal entry (episode) into a durable memory. Routes through memory_write — the durability gate, scope-mismatch detection, dedup, and the opt-in confirmation flow all apply.

Use this when an iteration's takeaway turns out to be a fact worth keeping across sessions, not just a run-state note.

Loop/working state belongs in episodes; session close is when to promote the takeaways that hardened.

On successful commit the source episode is deleted (its content has been distilled). On pending (require_write_confirmation), the source episode is held for memory_write_confirm to delete — memory_write_cancel keeps the episode so you can retry. On any other non-committed status (duplicate, previously_removed, transient_warning, scope_mismatch, ungrounded) the source episode is left untouched so you can adjust and re-promote.

Body default: when use_body=False (default), the durable memory's body is the episode's takeaway. Set use_body=True to use the full episode body. An episode with no takeaway requires use_body=True.

Returns the memory_write response shape plus promoted_from_episode_id, on every outcome.

Parameters:

episode_id: ULID of the source episode.
scopes: scopes for the durable memory. Required.
category (default 'fact'): memory category, as on memory_write.
confidence (default 'medium'), source (default 'explicit-statement'): standard memory_write fields.
use_body=False: when True, use the episode's body instead of its takeaway.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`scopes`	Yes
`source`	No	explicit-statement
`category`	No	fact
`use_body`	No
`confidence`	No	medium
`episode_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.34.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and exceeds it. It discloses the routing through memory_write, the durability gate, dedup, scope-mismatch detection, the exact outcomes for each status (deleted, held, untouched), and the body default logic. No contradiction with annotations (none present).

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then outcome behavior, then parameters. No fluff; each piece is necessary for correct invocation. Structure aids comprehension without redundancy.

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 tool with 6 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers the return shape (memory_write response plus promoted_from_episode_id), all edge cases, and parameter semantics, leaving no practical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explains each parameter: episode_id as ULID, scopes as required, defaults for category/confidence/source, and the nuanced use_body behavior with the requirement for episodes without a takeaway. Adds meaning far beyond the bare 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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Promote a journal entry (episode) into a durable memory.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_write and episode_write by explaining it is the promotion path, not a generic write. No ambiguity or tautology.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'when an iteration's takeaway turns out to be a fact worth keeping across sessions' and contrasts with loop/working state belonging in episodes. It also references the confirmation flow and names memory_write_confirm and memory_write_cancel as related steps, giving clear context for alternatives.

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

Deploy Server