Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DMT Receipts

DMT Receipts

by Colchora
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

prepare_memory

Canonicalize a dmt-memory JSON, compute its SHA-256 hash, and generate an Ordinals/TAP inscription recipe for permanent Bitcoin L1 storage. Does not broadcast or pay fees.

Instructions

Canonicalize a dmt-memory/v1 JSON memory, SHA-256 it, and return an Ordinals/TAP inscription recipe (content UTF-8 + optional dta pointer). Additional properties are extension fields: they are kept, sorted, and included in the hash. Does not broadcast a Bitcoin transaction or pay fees. Permanence requires inscribing the content on Bitcoin L1 via TAP Wallet or any Ordinals/TAP tool. Browser UI: https://misty-flame-3nw3.here.now/#anchor

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key / slug / path
tagsNoOptional string tags; defaults to []
contentYesMemory payload (string, object, array, number, or boolean)
agent_idYesStable agent identifier
created_atNoOptional ISO-8601 UTC timestamp ending in Z; defaults to now

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that extra properties are retained, sorted, and folded into the hash, and that no transaction is broadcast and no fees are paid. It omits error behavior and hash/format determinism guarantees, which would be useful for a hashing tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with constraints and the next step following in logical order; no filler. The trailing browser-UI URL is marginally useful but sits in the highest-value real estate.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the return value (UTF-8 content plus optional dta pointer). Combined with the no-broadcast disclaimer, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though failure modes and the 'recipe' structure details remain unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining how arbitrary extension properties beyond the declared schema are treated (kept, sorted, hashed), which the schema cannot express. It does not elaborate on the canonicalization rules for key ordering or timestamp normalization.

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 precise operations (canonicalize, SHA-256, produce an inscription recipe) on a specific resource (dmt-memory/v1 JSON memory), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling verify_inscription, leaving the prepare-vs-verify split to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the boundary clearly ('Does not broadcast a Bitcoin transaction or pay fees') and names the required follow-up path (inscribe on Bitcoin L1 via TAP Wallet or any Ordinals/TAP tool). There is no explicit routing to or exclusion of verify_inscription, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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