Sharpwave

brain_write

Store a memory node with automatic embedding and PRISM/NEXUS auto-linking for AI agent long-term memory.

Instructions

Store a new memory node. Automatically queues for embedding and PRISM/NEXUS auto-linking.

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "label": "<label>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "brain_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Node type: identity\|semantic\|episodic\|pattern\|skill\|goal\|emotion\|procedural\|schema
`label`	Yes	Short name for this memory
`content`	Yes	Full content of the memory
`importance`	No	0.0–1.0, default 0.5
`emotional_weight`	No	-1.0 to 1.0 (emotional salience)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses automatic queuing for embedding and auto-linking, providing some insight into side effects. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on synchronization, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the main action (store new memory) and efficiently convey the key additional behavior (queuing for embedding and linking).

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?

Explains the core operation and background processes, but omits return value information (e.g., whether an ID is returned), which is important for a creation tool. Slightly incomplete but otherwise solid.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool stores a new memory node and mentions automatic embedding and linking. This distinguishes it from siblings like brain_query, brain_forget, etc., by specifying the creation action.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied for storing new memories, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Sibling tools are listed but not compared, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

Deploy Server