Skip to main content
Glama
Filipe-Soares-de-Almeida

MemAI

by Filipe-Soares-de-Almeida
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

checkpoint

Snapshot current working state—intent, established facts, pursuits, and open questions—so the next session resumes with the right context via pulse().

Instructions

Snapshot current working state (intent/established/pursuing/open_questions).

A summary of where the work stands, so the next session picks up the right bearing via pulse(). Fields are free-length; still prefer a readable summary here and put timeless detail into note() -- checkpoints are read for bearing, not as an archive. One fact per note(), each cited back here by [[uid]] and linked with link_memories(); pulse() returns the latest checkpoint IN FULL, so every session pays for whatever was parked in these fields. Stored as type='checkpoint'.

title: one line naming what this memory is about, in the words someone would look for it by. It is what a list shows instead of the opening of the body, and it outweighs every other field in search, so a title that repeats the type ("note about the parser") names nothing. At most 120 characters, and a name that needs more than that is summarizing the body instead of naming it.

also: other domain paths this belongs to, comma-separated -- the cross-cutting subjects beside the one it is filed under. See note().

tags carries the synonyms the body never uses: retrieval is BM25 over content and tags, so a memory with none is reachable only by quoting itself. See note() for what belongs there.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alsoNo
tagsNo
titleYes
domainNo
intentYes
sessionNo
pursuingYes
establishedYes
open_questionsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / also
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Also",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Tags",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / title
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Title",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "intent",
-  "established",
-  "pursuing",
-  "open_questions"
-]New value: +[
+  "title",
+  "intent",
+  "established",
+  "pursuing",
+  "open_questions"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses storage type ('type=checkpoint'), the cost model (every session pays for what's parked here), and how it's retrieved by pulse(). It does not detail permissions or deletion behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but grows long with detailed guidance on title, also, and tags. While each section is purposeful, it borders on verbose and mixes tool description with field-level instruction that could be in the schema.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides critical context on usage, storage, and retrieval. It is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could say more about the impact of session or domain fields.

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 description coverage is 0% for 9 parameters, so the description compensates substantially: it documents the purpose of title, also, and tags, and lists the intent/established/pursuing/open_questions fields. Uncovered parameters like domain, session, and the required core fields lack detailed semantics beyond naming.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Snapshot current working state' with parenthetical fields. It distinguishes from siblings via explicit references to pulse(), note(), and link_memories(), but does not directly name why this differs from handoff or reasoning.

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 clear routing guidance: use checkpoint for bearing, put timeless detail into note(), cite facts by [[uid]], and understand it's read via pulse(). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use versus handoff, but strong context relative to its primary consumer.

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