Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LogicMem MCP Server

LogicMem MCP Server

by CreedLab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

logicmem_memory_session

Generate a full memory session briefing for a client, including recall, sentiment, constraints, intelligence, and gaps, to enable informed decisions.

Instructions

Full memory session briefing — recall + sentiment + constraints + intelligence + gaps.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "logicmem_memory_session"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
client_idNoClient ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the components included in the briefing, which gives some insight into the tool's output, but it does not mention read-only behavior, performance characteristics, whether it aggregates data from other tools, or any side effects. This is moderate transparency.

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 one concise sentence with a clear front-loaded subject ('Full memory session briefing') followed by a compact list of contents. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is described as a 'full' briefing aggregating multiple aspects, but the description lacks detail on what the output looks like, the meaning of terms like 'constraints' and 'intelligence', or any caveats. With no output schema and no annotations, more explanatory text is needed to make this tool usable.

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?

The single parameter `client_id` has a schema description ('Client ID') providing 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states the tool provides a 'full memory session briefing' with a specific list of components (recall, sentiment, constraints, intelligence, gaps). This clearly identifies the resource (memory session) and distinguishes it from siblings like recall or stats, though 'briefing' is a noun rather than a strong action verb.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It implies a comprehensive overview but offers no guidance on when a narrower tool like recall or stats would be more appropriate, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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