PseudoLife-MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_session_title

Name this session's auto-opened episode at the start so recaps read meaningfully. Call again to rename it; idempotent for hook-registered sessions.

Instructions

Name THIS session's auto-opened episode (default titles are generic). Call once at the start of work so session recaps read meaningfully. Idempotent; call again to rename.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	What this session is about, e.g. "Pseudolife-MCP" or "auth-refactor".
`episode`	No	Your session handle — names that session's root directly (the identity a hook-registered client has).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.15.0Sep 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / episode

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Your session handle — names that session's root directly (the identity a hook-registered client has).",
+  "title": "Episode"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / title / description

Added value: +"What this session is about, e.g. \"Pseudolife-MCP\" or \"auth-refactor\"."

First observedv0.11.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description asserts "Idempotent," but the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct contradiction on the tool's repeat-call semantics. Beyond that it does disclose useful context (generic defaults, rename behavior), but the explicit conflict with structured metadata is disqualifying.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the reason to call it, with zero filler. The trailing "Idempotent; call again to rename" is compact but is also the clause that introduces the annotation conflict.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers when to call and what gets named. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, aside from the idempotency inconsistency.

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% and both parameters (title, episode) are fully documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb ("Name") and a precise target ("THIS session's auto-opened episode"), and explicitly frames the value proposition ("default titles are generic"). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like memory_episode_start or memory_episode_summary without opening schemas.

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?

It gives clear timing guidance ("Call once at the start of work so session recaps read meaningfully") and the rename case ("call again to rename"). It does not name an explicit alternative tool or exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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