astrbot-mcp

kb_remember

Store a fact or note in the agent's long-term knowledge base for self-learning, with automatic deduplication and optional title, tags, and source.

Instructions

记住一条事实或笔记（供 Agent 自学习时调用；自动去重）。

Args: content: 要长期记住的内容。 title: 可选标题。 tags: 逗号分隔的标签。 source: 可选唯一标识；默认按内容哈希生成。

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "kb_remember"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`title`	No
`source`	No
`content`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: automatic deduplication and a content-hash default for `source`. It leaves open what dedup actually does on collision (skip, update, return existing) and says nothing about persistence or permissions for a write 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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded with the key facts, and the Args block is compact with zero filler. Every line adds either purpose or parameter meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, dedup behavior, and all four parameters. Nothing essential for a correct first call is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four params are described, including the non-obvious 'comma-separated' format for `tags` and the content-hash default for `source`. It stops short of stating format or length expectations for `content` and `title`.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('记住一条事实或笔记') plus a distinguishing behavioral trait (自动去重). It does not, however, contrast with the very similar sibling kb_add, so the agent must guess which write path to use.

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?

'供 Agent 自学习时调用' implies the usage context (self-learning/memory capture), which is real guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing against kb_add, kb_search, or kb_learn_url.

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