Skip to main content
Glama

memory_faro

Search stored memory before answering to ground responses and verify claims against evidence. Returns grounding scores with temporal and session-aware filtering.

Instructions

[alias of cuba_faro] Search memory BEFORE answering to ground responses. Returns grounding scores. Mode 'verify' checks claims against evidence (confidence: verified/partial/weak/unknown). Session-aware: boosts results matching active session goals. Supports temporal filtering. Optional MMR diversification, OOD abstention and an exact tiktoken-based token budget.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoSearch mode (default: hybrid). 'verify' checks if claim is grounded.
tagsNoFilter observations by tag keyword (exact match against auto-extracted tags)
afterNoISO8601 datetime — return results created after this time
limitNoMax results (default 10, max 50)
queryYesSearch text
scopeNoWhere to search (default: all)
beforeNoISO8601 datetime — return results created before this time
formatNoResponse format. compact (DEFAULT): abbreviated keys — e=entity, c=content, t=type, i=importance, s=score. 71% fewer tokens (798 vs 2787 at limit=10, measured). verbose: full key names, only when you need every field.
rerankNoCross-encoder rerank top-50 → top-K with bge-reranker-v2-m3. Auto-enabled when CUBA_MODE=completo, or when this build has a real GPU provider active (CUDA/DirectML compiled in AND a working device). Off by default everywhere else, even with the model on disk: on CPU it costs 60-110s and blows the search budget. Explicit true/false always wins; run `cuba-memorys doctor` to see which reason applies here.
diversifyNoPost-RRF MMR pass that penalizes near-duplicates among top-K. Default false.
max_tokensNoToken budget for results (default 5000). Counted exactly via tiktoken cl100k_base.
mmr_lambdaNoMMR balance — 1.0 pure relevance, 0.0 pure diversity. Default 0.7.
abstain_oodNoAbstain (return empty results with abstain_reason) when the query is out-of-distribution via Mahalanobis distance. Default false.
associativeNoMulti-hop expansion: seeds spreading activation from query-matched entities and pulls in observations on graph-connected entities that no lexical/vector signal surfaced. Additive — never lowers a base hit. Default false.
enable_bm25NoEnable BM25 (ts_rank_cd) as third RRF signal alongside text + vector. Catches queries with rare terms that dense embeddings miss. Default true.
ood_thresholdNoMahalanobis distance threshold for abstention. Defaults to sqrt(chi2_0.99(d)), which scales with the embedding dimension (~21.25 for d=384). Override only if you calibrated on your own corpus.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.25.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 reasonably well: it discloses grounding-score returns, session-aware boosting against active goals (not visible in the schema), temporal filtering, and optional MMR/OOD/token-budget behavior. It never states the read-only nature or any auth/permission prerequisites, so it is not fully complete.

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-loaded with the core action and intent, then packs mode, session-awareness, and the optional feature set into a tight block. The trailing feature list reads slightly like a spec dump but every clause carries 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 16-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description orients the agent well on purpose, modes, and the major behavioral toggles. It does not describe the shape of the returned results beyond "grounding scores," which is a modest gap given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by spelling out the verify-mode confidence taxonomy (verified/partial/weak/unknown) and the grounding-score output, which no parameter field explains.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (search memory), plus the higher-order intent (ground responses BEFORE answering) and the alias relationship to cuba_faro. It does not differentiate itself from the many other memory_* siblings, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

"Search memory BEFORE answering to ground responses" gives clear timing/context for use, and the mode 'verify' guidance describes a distinct usage scenario for claim-checking. No explicit when-not or named alternatives among siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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