GPT Commander

memory_note

Store a note in memory with optional tags, type, scope, and expiration, ready for future retrieval.

Instructions

Store a note in the memory MCP

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "memory_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`type`	No
`scope`	No
`content`	Yes
`ttlDays`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Store'. It does not mention whether the note is appended, overwrites existing notes, whether tags/type/scope affect storage, or what the return value indicates. The persistence and side effects are opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, which is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified: for a tool with five parameters, one sentence that names no parameters is arguably too terse, even if it is not bloated.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given five parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no usage guidance, this description leaves nearly all relevant context missing. A user or agent would not know how to fill the parameters, what the tool returns, or how to interpret success/failure. This is far below a minimal viable description.

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%, and the description adds no information about the five parameters. It only generically says 'a note' without explaining the roles of content, tags, type, scope, or ttlDays. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Store') and specifies the resource ('a note in the memory MCP'), clearly indicating the tool's core function. It is distinct from sibling tools like write_file or search tools. However, 'memory MCP' is somewhat vague without additional context about what 'memory' refers to.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions. For instance, it does not say whether this is the preferred way to persist short-term reminders vs. using write_file. There is no mention of suitable scenarios or when not to use it.

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