Mneme Decision MCP

Official

by MnemeHQ

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Propose decisions in batch (non-authoritative)

decision.propose_batch

Idempotent

Batch propose architectural decisions as independent, non-authoritative candidates for review. Each candidate gets its own identity and remains separately reviewable, without batch acceptance semantics.

Instructions

Submit multiple candidate architectural decisions from one producer output. Each candidate receives its own independent proposal identity and enters as a non-authoritative proposal with status 'proposed'. There are no batch acceptance semantics: batch submission grants NO authority, and every proposal remains independently reviewable. Use decision.propose for a single candidate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`candidates`	Yes	Candidate decisions to submit independently; output results preserve this input order.
`shared_provenance`	No	Optional fallback provenance applied to every candidate. Candidate provenance takes precedence, and each candidate must have effective provenance from one or both inputs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed16 schema fields changedv0.9.2Sep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / $defs / CandidateInput / properties / architecture_context / description
```
Added value: +"Optional string key/value context captured with the proposal."
```

addedInput schema / $defs / CandidateInput / properties / provenance / description

Added value: +"Source provenance for this candidate. Required by decision.propose; in decision.propose_batch it may be omitted when shared_provenance is supplied."

addedInput schema / $defs / CandidateInput / properties / rationale / description
```
Added value: +"Optional explanation of why the decision is being proposed."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / CandidateInput / properties / related_decision_ids / description
```
Added value: +"Optional stable ids of related proposals or canonical decisions."
```

addedInput schema / $defs / CandidateInput / properties / scope_hints / description

Added value: +"Optional opaque retrieval hints for contexts or paths; these are not typed-rule applicability selectors."

addedInput schema / $defs / CandidateInput / properties / statement / description

Added value: +"Non-empty statement of the architectural decision being proposed."

addedInput schema / $defs / CandidateInput / properties / title / description
```
Added value: +"Non-empty concise title for the candidate decision."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / SourceProvenanceInput / properties / external_source_id / description
```
Added value: +"Optional stable identifier assigned by the source system."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / SourceProvenanceInput / properties / origin_classification / description
```
Added value: +"Declared origin of the proposed content."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / SourceProvenanceInput / properties / producer_name / description
```
Added value: +"Name of the agent, integration, or system proposing the decision."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / SourceProvenanceInput / properties / producer_type / description
```
Added value: +"Type of producer, such as agent, integration, or import."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / SourceProvenanceInput / properties / repository_locator / description
```
Added value: +"Optional repository path or locator associated with the source."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / SourceProvenanceInput / properties / source_reference / description
```
Added value: +"Human-readable reference to the source output or artifact."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / SourceProvenanceInput / properties / source_version / description
```
Added value: +"Optional source revision or version used for idempotent identity."
```

addedInput schema / properties / candidates / description

Added value: +"Candidate decisions to submit independently; output results preserve this input order."

addedInput schema / properties / shared_provenance / description

Added value: +"Optional fallback provenance applied to every candidate. Candidate provenance takes precedence, and each candidate must have effective provenance from one or both inputs."

First observedv0.9.1Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint, readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: each candidate gets its own proposal identity, enters with status 'proposed', remains independently reviewable, and batch submission grants no authority. This directly addresses the most likely misconception about batch semantics. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the critical caveat about non-authoritative batch semantics is stated clearly. Every sentence adds necessary decision-making information, and the alternative tool is mentioned compactly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description, combined with a complete input schema and an output schema, gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the key behavioral contract, distinguishes from the sibling tool, and the schema covers parameters and output ordering. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents candidates and shared_provenance, including provenance precedence. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Submit multiple candidate architectural decisions from one producer output.' It also clarifies the key semantic, that each candidate becomes an independent non-authoritative 'proposed' proposal, and distinguishes itself from decision.propose by explicitly directing single-candidate use there. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose that separates it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the alternative decision.propose for a single candidate, giving a clear when/when-not boundary. It also explains the intended context ('from one producer output') and warns that batch submission has no acceptance authority, so an agent knows when this tool is appropriate and when to use the single-proposal sibling instead.

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

Deploy Server