Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-hyperspace-memory

mcp-hyperspace-memory

Official
by YARlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

memory_remember

Stores new facts, events, or procedures as persistent agent memories with session scoping, tags, memory type, and importance scoring for later semantic recall.

Instructions

Store a new memory, event, fact, or procedure for the agent in collection 'agent_cognitive_memories_129'. Automatically vectorizes text and stores with session_id, tags, memory_type (semantic, episodic, procedural), and importance (1-10). Returns a JSON object with memory_id, status, and metadata summary.

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": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_remember"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoOptional list of tags (e.g. ['user_preference', 'fact']).
textYesThe memory text to store.
importanceNoImportance level from 1 (minor detail) to 10 (critical core fact). Default: 5.
session_idYesSession or conversation identifier. Scopes recall to a specific conversation.
memory_typeNoType of memory: 'semantic' (facts, preferences), 'episodic' (events, context), 'procedural' (instructions, rules). Default: 'episodic'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the automatic vectorization side effect, the fields persisted alongside the text, and the response shape (memory_id, status, metadata summary). It does not address duplicate handling or whether an existing similar memory is merged versus created, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: action and collection first, then behavior, then return value. The only redundancy is repeating the enum values and importance scale already present in the schema.

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?

For a 5-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials: what is stored, what is attached, and what comes back. Gaps remain around deduplication and error conditions, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 tags, text, importance, session_id, and memory_type are all already documented with defaults and enum meanings. The description restates the memory_type values and importance 1-10 range rather than adding new semantics such as how session_id interacts with later recall. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Store a new memory, event, fact, or procedure") and names the target collection, so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like memory_update or memory_consolidate, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "Store" — an agent can infer this is the write path versus memory_recall/memory_forget, but the description never says when to choose it over memory_update (existing memory) or memory_consolidate. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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