Skip to main content
Glama

remember_decision

Store a decision along with its rationale and context, making it retrievable, revertible, and auditable while newer decisions on the same topic supersede older ones.

Instructions

Store a DECISION — the thing that actually matters and that a raw event/command log misses. Use this whenever you (or the user) CONCLUDE or CHOOSE something: "we decided X", "we're going with Y", "dropped Z", "the plan is W". Pass because (the rationale) and context (the situation) — they're kept for retrieval so a later recall answers "what did we decide, and why", not just "what commands ran".

topic (recommended) gives the decision deterministic keyed supersession (decision::<topic>): a NEW decision on the same topic RETIRES the old one, recall returns the CURRENT decision, and revert('decision::<topic>') restores the prior one — decisions stay current, correctable, revertible, and auditable, with NO LLM and no similarity guesswork (inspeximus's integrity moat applied to decisions; an LLM-extracted fact store can't do this).

source / derived_from — same meaning as on remember, and they matter MORE here, not less. A decision is usually ABOUT someone ("we're billing Alice monthly"), which makes it exactly the kind of record a right-to-erasure request has to reach. Without a source it is attributable to nothing but its own id: forget_subject cannot find it, and it survives a DSAR that erased everything else about that person. Measured: a decision written with no source answered would_erase=0 to every phrasing of the subject.

If this server was started with a PROJECT scope, the decision is stamped with it — so "we're going with Postgres here" recorded in one repo does not surface while you work in another. NOTE that the supersession key stays decision::<topic> and is NOT namespaced by project: the same topic in two projects still supersedes across them. Use a project-qualified topic when you want them independent.

Returns the new memory id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNo
sourceNo
becauseNo
contextNo
decisionYes
derived_fromNo
Install Server

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses supersession behavior (a new decision on the same topic retires the old one), revertibility, project scoping, cross-project supersession caveats, and right-to-erasure implications for decisions with no source. It even returns the new memory id.

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 description is long but well-structured into purposeful paragraphs, each addressing a distinct aspect: core usage, topic behavior, source/erasure, and project scoping. Some phrases, such as the integrity-moat marketing aside, are not strictly necessary for invoking the tool, but most content is substantive and earns its place.

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?

Given six parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains the semantics of every parameter group, describes side effects like supersession and project stamping, discusses important compliance behavior for DSARs, and states the return value.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does. It explains topic as the keyed supersession mechanism, because and context as retrieval-relevant rationale, and source/derived_from as attribution and erasure-relevant fields. The required decision field is clearly the core content being stored.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store a DECISION', then defines exactly what qualifies as a decision versus a raw event/command log. It clearly distinguishes itself from related sibling tools such as remember and observe by focusing on conclusions and choices rather than events.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this whenever you (or the user) CONCLUDE or CHOOSE something', with concrete examples like 'we decided X' and 'we're going with Y'. It also clarifies what it is not for — raw event/command logs — and covers project-scope behavior as a conditional usage consideration.

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

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DanceNitra/inspeximus'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server