Skip to main content
Glama

mem_tried

Record failed approaches to prevent future agents from repeating the same mistakes. Saves debugging time by surfacing negative knowledge in future briefings.

Instructions

Record a FAILED approach so future agents don't repeat the same mistake.

USE THIS IMMEDIATELY when you try something and it doesn't work. This is the most valuable type of negative knowledge — it saves hours of debugging for future agents working on the same codebase.

Auto-validated (no approval cycle). Surfaced FIRST in future get_briefing calls so it's impossible to miss.

PARAMETERS: what — short title of what you tried (e.g. 'importing X with ESM dynamic import') why_failed — the exact error or reason it failed instead — what to do instead (the correct approach) scope — team (default) | personal paths — source files where the issue lives

RETURNS: { id, file_path, action: 'created' }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTags for filtering
whatYesBrief description of the approach that was tried
pathsNoAnchor file paths this applies to
scopeNoVisibility scope. Defaults to personal — EXCEPT when a one-shot `sensor` is attached: an enforced lesson is team truth (the sensor must travel to every machine and CI), so it defaults to team. Pass scope explicitly to override.
authorNoAuthor handle or email
moduleNoModule name (required when scope=module)
sensorNoONE-SHOT loop close: validate and attach a sensor in the same call (equivalent to a follow-up propose_sensor). Validated against HEAD — silent on current code, fires on the bad example. If rejected, the attempt is still saved and the verdict tells you how to revise.
insteadNoWhat to use or do instead (recommended alternative)
why_failedYesWhy it failed or why it should NOT be used
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses useful behavioral traits: 'Auto-validated (no approval cycle)' and 'Surfaced FIRST in future get_briefing calls.' However, the description incorrectly states scope default as 'team (default)' while the schema says it defaults to personal unless a sensor is attached. This contradiction undermines transparency, and the main description omits the sensor validation behavior entirely.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, behavior, params, returns) and front-loaded intent. However, the PARAMETERS list is incomplete and contains an inaccurate scope default, which reduces the quality of the structure. It's not overlong, but the misinformation detracts from its conciseness.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and a complex nested sensor object, but the description omits the sensor feature entirely and misstates scope default. It covers the simple failure-recording case well but is incomplete for advanced usage. Given the schema exists, it doesn't need to duplicate every detail, but it should at least be consistent and hint at the sensor capability.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's PARAMETERS section adds concise semantics for what/why_failed/instead/paths, but it omits tags, author, module, and sensor. More critically, it states 'scope — team (default) | personal', which contradicts the schema's 'Defaults to personal — EXCEPT when a one-shot sensor is attached: ... defaults to team.' This misinformation actively misleads agents.

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 'Record a FAILED approach so future agents don't repeat the same mistake,' which clearly identifies the verb (record), resource (failed approach), and intended purpose. This instantly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mem_save or get_briefing by focusing on negative knowledge.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'USE THIS IMMEDIATELY when you try something and it doesn't work' and explains the value ('saves hours of debugging'). It does not, however, mention when not to use it or directly compare to alternatives like mem_save, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

Install Server

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/Doucs91/hivelore'

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