PseudoLife-MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_fact_set

Destructive

Set canonical facts by inserting, confirming, or correcting entity attributes; conflicting writes are marked contested for human review and resolution.

Instructions

Assert a canonical fact — insert, confirm, or correct a slot.

A new value at an existing slot supersedes the old (history kept). A conflicting write parks as a contender (action="contested", winner under current) — check with the human, settle via memory_fact_resolve.

authority / distortion_tolerance inherit the slot's labels unless restated.

Returns: {action: inserted|confirmed|superseded|contested, ...record}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes	The value that is canonical NOW.
`entity`	Yes	The slot's subject; the (entity, attribute) match is case- and separator-insensitive.
`origin`	No	Who asserted it: "user" = the human told you; otherwise "action"/"agent". Omitted records "agent".
`episode`	No	Episode handle for attribution.
`attribute`	Yes	The slot's attribute.
`authority`	No	Speech act of the source: "directive" / "quoted" (doc or third party) / "observation"; "auto" infers.	auto
`confidence`	No	How sure you are, 0..1.
`freshness_class`	No	How fast the value rots. "auto" infers the decay rate from the entity kind.	auto
`distortion_tolerance`	No	"constraint" = verbatim, pinned in recall; "auto" infers only that.	auto

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv0.15.0Sep 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / attribute / description
```
Added value: +"The slot's attribute."
```

addedInput schema / properties / authority

Added value: +{
+  "default": "auto",
+  "description": "Speech act of the source: \"directive\" / \"quoted\" (doc or third party) / \"observation\"; \"auto\" infers.",
+  "enum": [
+    "auto",
+    "directive",
+    "observation",
+    "quoted"
+  ],
+  "title": "Authority",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / confidence / description
```
Added value: +"How sure you are, 0..1."
```

addedInput schema / properties / distortion_tolerance

Added value: +{
+  "default": "auto",
+  "description": "\"constraint\" = verbatim, pinned in recall; \"auto\" infers only that.",
+  "enum": [
+    "auto",
+    "constraint",
+    "procedural",
+    "belief",
+    "preference",
+    "episodic"
+  ],
+  "title": "Distortion Tolerance",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / entity / description

Added value: +"The slot's subject; the (entity, attribute) match is case- and separator-insensitive."

addedInput schema / properties / episode / description
```
Added value: +"Episode handle for attribution."
```

addedInput schema / properties / freshness_class / description

Added value: +"How fast the value rots. \"auto\" infers the decay rate from the entity kind."

addedInput schema / properties / origin / description

Added value: +"Who asserted it: \"user\" = the human told you; otherwise \"action\"/\"agent\". Omitted records \"agent\"."

addedInput schema / properties / value / description
```
Added value: +"The value that is canonical NOW."
```

First observedv0.11.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the old value is superseded but history is kept (softening the destructiveHint), conflicting writes park as contenders rather than overwriting, and authority/distortion_tolerance inherit slot labels unless restated. This is exactly the mutation-safety detail the destructive/non-idempotent annotations flag as risky.

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?

Densely front-loaded — the core action leads, then conflict semantics, then inheritance, then the return shape. No filler sentences, though a few clauses are terse enough to require a second read.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with a contested-state model, the description covers action semantics, conflict handling, inheritance behavior, and even the return shape (despite an output schema existing). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by documenting cross-parameter behavior the schema cannot express: authority and distortion_tolerance inherit the slot's labels unless restated, which changes how an agent should reason about defaults on a write.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Assert a canonical fact — insert, confirm, or correct a slot.' The three modes map cleanly onto the slot model, and it explicitly routes the conflict case to the sibling memory_fact_resolve, so an agent can distinguish it from memory_fact_get and memory_store.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the contested case ('check with the human, settle via memory_fact_resolve') and explains supersede vs. confirm behavior. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use this versus memory_store or memory_supersede, so it stops short of the top tier.

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