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

MemAI

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

handoff

Leave a note for the next agent or session taking over, so open items for a domain surface automatically and work can continue without losing context.

Instructions

Leave a note for another agent/session picking up this work.

Stored as type='handoff'; open ones for a domain are surfaced by pulse(). also cross-lists it into further domain paths -- see note().

content holds the message and what the next agent needs to act on it. Durable knowledge goes to note() and is cited from here -- see note() on when a body is two memories.

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.

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
contentYes
sessionNo

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: -[
-  "content"
-]New value: +[
+  "title",
+  "content"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the storage type ('handoff'), that open ones surface via pulse(), that `also` cross-lists into further domain paths, and that retrieval is BM25 over content+tags so an untagged memory is reachable only by quoting itself. It omits permissions, error/overwrite behavior, and return format, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the type/pulse/also facts efficiently. However, the 'see note()' pointer is repeated three times and the title/tags paragraphs run long, so a few sentences are redundant rather than earning their place.

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?

For a 6-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core write semantics well. The gaps are the unexplained domain/session parameters and no hint of the result, so it is close to but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains title (with a hard 120-char limit and search-weighting rationale), content, tags, and `also` (cross-listing), but leaves `domain` and `session` entirely unexplained, so two of six parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Leave a note for another agent/session picking up this work') and immediately distinguishes it from its closest sibling by routing durable knowledge to note(). An agent can tell handoff apart from note() and pulse() without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear selection context: use this to hand work to another session, while 'Durable knowledge goes to note().' It also names pulse() as the surfacing mechanism. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the note()/handoff split is well drawn.

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