Skip to main content
Glama

Compose a memory_token citation handle

emem_memory_token
Read-onlyIdempotent

Mint a compact citation token for a verified fact, enabling agents to resolve it to the identical signed object and avoid referential drift when passing across threads or tools.

Instructions

Mint a citation handle, emem:fact:<cell64>:<fact_cid> (or :<state_cid>), that any agent or LLM resolves to the byte-identical signed object. The antidote to referential drift on the value side: hand this one string to another agent instead of re-describing the fact. Validates both components are non-empty and free of the : separator. Memory algebra: the cite operation (https://emem.dev/docs/model.html).

When to use: Call when the agent wants a single rebindable string to cite a place plus an attested fact across messages, threads, agents, or tools, without re-fetching or re-describing it. Pair with emem_verify_receipt on the receiving end to check the signed payload. To cite an OBJECT rather than a single reading, use emem_entity's emem:entity: token. FOR MANY FACTS, USE emem_memory_bundle INSTEAD, and this is a measured cost rather than a style preference: a token is ~104 characters while the signed value it points at averages ~18, so N individual tokens cost roughly 5.8x the context of simply pasting the N numbers, and an N-token prompt hits the context wall SOONER than the plain values would. A bundle is 38 characters at ANY N up to 256 and resolves in one round trip. Individual tokens are for citing ONE fact you must be able to verify later; they are the wrong tool for carrying a set.

Example arguments: {"cell":"defi.zb493.xoso.zcb6a","fact_cid":"cxjiu7l54ujzrpnekp24n4534yojpue4mprddbvevnqtti3lh5bq"}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bandNoOptional band key. When set, the minted citation carries the band's tamper-provenance block (class, deterministic, tamper_evidence, trust_rank) so the receiving agent sees the trust class without a resolve round-trip.
cellYescell64, neither component may contain `:`.
fact_cidYes52-char base32-nopad-lowercase content-id of the fact (full 32-byte blake3).
observed_onNoThe fact's source capture date (YYYY-MM-DD) as `/v1/recall` reports it in `sources[].captured_at`. Supplied together with `band` it additionally mints the self-describing `descriptor_token`. A wrong date forges nothing: resolve binds the date to the signed fact and answers 409 on a mismatch.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cellYes
docsNo
grammarNoThe token grammar, so the form can be parsed rather than pattern-matched.
fact_cidYes
cell_tokenNoThe address alone, when you mean the place rather than an observation of it.
memory_tokenYesThe citation to paste: emem:fact:<cell64>:<fact_cid>. Copy it verbatim; a hand-assembled token that is one character wrong still reads as a citation and resolves to nothing.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it validates that components are non-empty and free of `:`, and that the handle resolves to the byte-identical signed object. No contradiction with annotations, though return behavior is left to the output schema.

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?

The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and is well-structured: definition, format, usage guidance, alternatives, then an explicit example. The longer cost analysis earns its place because it explains a nontrivial tradeoff between individual tokens and bundles, helping agents avoid a costly mistake. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete for selection and invocation. It covers the handle format, validation constraints, when to use it, when not to, alternatives, and provides a concrete example. The optional parameters are well-documented in the schema, so no critical invocation information is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description provides example values and shows how cell and fact_cid map into the handle format, but it does not add substantial new meaning for the optional `band` and `observed_on` parameters beyond what the schema already states. The brief `:<state_cid>` alternative adds a small extra clue, but most parameter semantics come from the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mint a citation handle' with an explicit format (`emem:fact:<cell64>:<fact_cid>`). It differentiates from siblings by explicitly naming emem_entity for objects and emem_memory_bundle for many facts, so the agent can immediately see what this tool is and is not for.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Contains a dedicated 'When to use' section and explicit alternatives: use emem_entity for an object token, use emem_memory_bundle for many facts, and pair with emem_verify_receipt on the receiving end. It even explains why individual tokens are the wrong tool for carrying a set, with concrete cost reasoning.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Vortx-AI/emem'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server