Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
engram

engram

by TushaeBXN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

engram_why

Explain a memory: where it came from, when, whether it is record or inference, the evidence it rests on (and whether that evidence was since corrected or disputed), earlier versions and their evidence, conflicts, and, given the query, why…

Instructions

Explain a memory: where it came from, when, whether it is record or inference, the evidence it rests on (and whether that evidence was since corrected or disputed), earlier versions and their evidence, conflicts, and, given the query, why search ranked it. Use it before relying on a conclusion or when asked to justify one.

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>"
    },
    "name": "engram_why"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoThe question it was retrieved for (optional)
memory_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.10.5

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that the result includes provenance, record-vs-inference classification, evidence status (corrected or disputed), prior versions, conflicts, and ranking rationale. It omits that the operation is read-only/side-effect-free and says nothing about limits or response format, which matters without annotations.

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?

The first sentence is a long, list-heavy enumeration but each clause (evidence, corrections, versions, conflicts, ranking) adds distinct information. The second sentence is front-loaded with usage and the overall text is dense but free of filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does so thoroughly via its enumeration of provenance, evidence status, versions, conflicts, and ranking explanation. Given no annotations, it should additionally state that this is a read-only explanation with no mutation side effects.

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 only 50% (memory_id is undocumented). The description does compensate for the query parameter by explaining its role: 'given the query, why search ranked it,' which adds semantics beyond the schema's terse 'The question it was retrieved for.' The required memory_id is only implied by the tool's subject rather than explicitly described.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Explain a memory') and enumerates exactly what is explained: origin, time, record-vs-inference status, evidence, corrections, earlier versions, conflicts, and ranking rationale. This scope makes it distinct from narrower siblings like engram_history or engram_source, though it never names or routes to those alternatives explicitly.

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 triggering conditions: 'Use it before relying on a conclusion or when asked to justify one.' That tells the agent when the tool is warranted, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as engram_check or engram_history.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools