Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brain-engine

brain-engine

by LiorHalfon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

verify_memory

Mark a stored memory as explicitly verified by its owner so agents can distinguish confirmed information from unverified entries.

Instructions

Mark a memory as explicitly verified by the owner.

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memory_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation and an owner-only authorization gate, but says nothing about reversibility, whether the memory must already exist, what side effects occur in the memory graph, or what a failure looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the outcome state is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

This is a state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required identifier. Given that complexity profile, the definition omits prerequisites, effects, and result semantics that an agent would need to invoke it safely.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what memory_id refers to, whether it must be an existing memory, or its expected format (the sibling sync_memory_graph suggests graph node identifiers may exist).

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 names a specific verb ('Mark') and the resulting state ('explicitly verified by the owner') on a named resource, the memory. An agent can tell this is a state-changing attestation rather than a read. It does not differentiate from siblings such as correct_memory or edit_memory, leaving ambiguity about what 'verified' means versus 'corrected'.

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 guidance on when to call this versus correct_memory, edit_memory, or remember. The only hint is 'by the owner', which implies an authorization condition but is not framed as a usage rule. The agent must infer the scenario entirely.

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