Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
engram-mcp

engram-mcp

by Cartisien
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

consolidate

Archives old working memories and generates dense LLM summaries for long-term retention.

Instructions

Consolidate old working memories into dense long-term summaries via LLM. Archives originals.

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": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "consolidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesSession identifier
batchNoNumber of memories to consolidate (default 50)
keepNoMost recent N to leave untouched (default 20)
dryRunNoPreview summaries without writing (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'via LLM' and 'Archives originals', but does not disclose whether originals are deleted or retained, what permissions are required, or any side effects like rate limits or data destruction.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core action and output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (4 params), the description explains the core transformation but lacks usage guidance, behavioral traits, and expected return values, making it only partially complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 the schema itself documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not clarify the parameter semantics or relationships.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Consolidate', the resource 'old working memories', the output 'dense long-term summaries', and the method 'via LLM'. It also mentions 'Archives originals', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'consolidate_user'.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'recall', 'forget', or 'daily_summary'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools