mcp-agent-hub

remember

Writes shared, versioned memory entries for cross-agent coordination; reusing a key increments its version while preserving prior history.

Instructions

写入共享黑板（跨 Agent 记忆）。同一 key 会递增 version 并保留历史。

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": {
      "key": "<key>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "remember"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`key`	Yes
`tags`	No
`agent`	No
`value`	Yes
`value_type`	No	text

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious behavioral traits — same key increments version and history is retained — which is genuinely useful for a write tool. However it says nothing about overwrite semantics for 'value', concurrency, permissions, or failure modes.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the most surprising behavior (version bump on write) front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves three parameters and all error/permission behavior undocumented. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it confidently beyond key/value writes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only addresses 'key' (and implicitly 'value'); 'tags', 'agent', and 'value_type' are given no meaning anywhere — especially 'value_type', whose accepted vocabulary is completely unknown.

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 verb and resource ('写入共享黑板') and adds scope ('跨 Agent 记忆'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the read-side sibling 'recall' and the deletion sibling 'forget'. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The cross-agent memory framing implies the usage context (persisting facts other agents should see), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of when to prefer 'recall' or 'forget', and no prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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