Nexus Memory MCP

remember

Persist decisions, preferences, and architecture patterns as memories. Ensure critical context survives across AI sessions for reliable recall.

Instructions

Store a memory. Use this to persist decisions, preferences, architecture, patterns, or anything that should survive across sessions.

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "remember"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes	What to remember (be descriptive)
`context`	No	Category: "preferences", "architecture", "decisions", "patterns", etc.	general
`metadata`	No	Optional JSON string with additional data	{}
`importance`	No	0.0 to 1.0 - higher = more important

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the core behavior (persisting data) but does not mention return values, overwrite behavior, deduplication, or any side effects, leaving the agent without important behavioral context for a write operation.

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?

The description is two short sentences with the action front-loaded ('Store a memory.') followed by a useful elaboration on what kinds of memories to store. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple store operation, the description plus fully described schema provides enough information for an agent to invoke it. It lacks an explicit note about the return value or storage behavior, but the tool's simplicity keeps the gap small.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds general examples of content but does not augment the schema's per-parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Store' with the resource 'memory', and lists example content types (decisions, preferences, architecture, patterns). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall (retrieve) and forget (delete), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: to persist anything that should survive across sessions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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

Deploy Server