Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brain-engine

brain-engine

by LiorHalfon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remember

Create durable memories for AI agents, with exact duplicates rejected before graph ingestion to prevent redundant knowledge.

Instructions

Create a durable memory. Exact duplicates are rejected before graph ingestion.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNonote
tagsNo
titleYes
sourceNo
contentYes
searchableNo
verified_by_userNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the whole burden. It usefully discloses that exact duplicates are rejected before graph ingestion, but says nothing about what a rejection returns, whether ingestion is synchronous, whether the entry is immediately searchable, or what permissions are needed for a 7-parameter write.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than padding, but the structure itself is clean.

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?

For a mutation tool with seven undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what a stored memory looks like, how duplicate suppression surfaces, or what the boolean flags change.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across seven parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Ambiguous fields like kind, source, searchable, and verified_by_user get no explanation anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Create a durable memory"), and the word "durable" implicitly separates it from remember_session. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so an agent must infer the persistence distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus remember_session, edit_memory, or correct_memory, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The duplicate-rejection clause is a behavioral fact, not usage guidance.

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