memkin

Synthesize Memory

synthesize

Synthesize a cited answer from memory using an intent template, and get gap-aware results that flag stale or missing information.

Instructions

synthesize

Synthesize a cited, gap-aware answer from memory using an intent template.

When to use: you want a composed answer (not raw snippets) about an entity, time window, or query. When NOT to use: raw ranked snippets; use query/search. Returns: answer with inline [n] citations, citations[], and gaps[] (stale / missing). On error: ensure the intent is registered and the scope is non-empty.

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": {
      "intent": "<intent>"
    },
    "name": "synthesize"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	Retrieval scope (entity / time / query).
`intent`	Yes	Registered synthesis intent, for example `recall`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description details return structure (answer with citations, citations[], gaps[]) and error requirements (intent registered, scope non-empty). Lacks info on auth or rate limits but sufficient for a non-destructive tool.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for main action, then bullet-pointed usage guidance, return, and error handling. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

With no output schema, description covers return values and error states. Mentions gaps and citations. Could detail the exact shape of citations and gaps, but overall complete for a synthesis tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema: notes intent must be registered, and gives example 'recall'. Not significantly augmenting.

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?

Explicitly states it synthesizes a cited, gap-aware answer from memory using an intent template. Clearly differentiates from siblings like query/search which return raw snippets.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (composed answer) and when-not-to-use (raw snippets, use query/search). Offers concrete alternative tools.

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