engram

by TushaeBXN

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

engram_source

Record where a stored memory came from (and optionally the citation or URL).

Instructions

Record where a stored memory came from (and optionally the citation or URL).

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>",
      "source": "<source>"
    },
    "name": "engram_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	Yes	Where it came from: user (the person said it), primary (original document, law, ruling, data), secondary (reporting or analysis), tool (search or program output), inference (your own conclusion)
`memory_id`	Yes
`source_ref`	No	Citation, URL or document it came from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.10.5Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether this overwrites an existing source, whether it requires the memory to already exist, what happens on invalid memory_id, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase corresponds to an input parameter or the core action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is a single sentence that omits update/overwrite semantics, prerequisites, and error behavior. The memory_id parameter is not described anywhere. It is too thin for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 67%; the source enum and source_ref are well described in the schema. The description adds the optional nature of the citation/URL but does not add meaning for memory_id, which remains undocumented in both places. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('where a stored memory came from'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like engram_add_memory or engram_correct, but the core action is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The wording implies this is for attaching provenance to an existing memory, but it never says when to use this versus engram_add_memory, engram_correct, or engram_link. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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