boltwork-mcp

memory_store

Store persistent key-value memory for your AI agent across sessions. Data persists per agent ID with optional expiration, cost is 10 sats via Lightning.

Instructions

Store persistent key-value memory for your agent. Data persists across sessions, keyed by agent_id. Up to 100 keys per agent, 10 keys per write call. Costs 10 sats via Lightning.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "entries": "<entries>"
    },
    "name": "memory_store"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`agent_id`	Yes	Stable identifier for your agent
`entries`	Yes	Key-value pairs to store (max 10 keys, values must be JSON-serialisable)
`ttl_seconds`	No	Time-to-live in seconds (omit for no expiry)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.22May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses persistence, keying by agent_id, hard limits, and cost. This covers key behavioral traits, though it omits details like overwrite behavior or error responses.

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, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, persistence, and constraints/cost. No redundant information; front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Given no output schema and only three parameters, the description covers purpose, persistence, limits, and cost. It does not mention return values or error scenarios, but these are minor gaps for a simple storage tool. It could link to memory_retrieve for retrieval but is not strictly necessary.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., max 10 keys already documented in schema for entries). The cost and persistence are global, not parameter-specific.

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 clearly states 'Store persistent key-value memory for your agent' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_delete and memory_retrieve by specifying 'store' behavior, and adds key constraints (100 keys per agent, 10 per write).

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?

The context implies use for saving data across sessions, and limits (10 keys per call) guide efficient usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., when retrieving) or reference sibling alternatives directly.

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

Deploy Server