Skip to main content
Glama

memory_store

Store content with metadata and automatic vector embeddings for semantic retrieval. Save decisions, patterns, and knowledge with tags and scope isolation.

Instructions

Store a new memory with content, metadata, and automatic vector embedding. Use this to save information, decisions, patterns, or knowledge for later semantic retrieval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesThe text content to store as a memory
titleNoShort title for the memory
scopeNoMemory scope for isolation
namespaceNoNamespace within scope (e.g., project name, team name)
document_typeNoType of document (e.g., contract, policy, code, incident, decision)
sourceNoOrigin of the content (e.g., file path, URL, system name)
authorNoWho created this content
departmentNoDepartment (e.g., legal, engineering, hr, sales, finance)
tagsNoTags for categorization
access_levelNoAccess classification levelinternal
languageNoContent language (ISO 639-1 code)en
metadataNoDomain-specific metadata (e.g., {contract_type: 'NDA', parties: ['A','B']})
agent_idNoIdentifier of the writing agent for multi-agent attribution
expires_atNoFull ISO-8601 expiration timestamp, e.g. 2026-03-01T00:00:00Z (memory auto-excluded from search after this)
importance_scoreNoExplicit importance 0-1 (governance/criticality). When omitted it is derived from content; min_importance filters operate on this value.
on_conflictNoWrite policy when a near-match exists. "add" (default): insert as new, except an exact duplicate is skipped (NOOP) — identical to prior behaviour. "update": merge content into the existing match (append + re-embed + version bump). "supersede": retire (invalidate) the conflicting match and add this as the current one.add
Behavior4/5

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

The description mentions automatic vector embedding, disclosing a key behavior. Annotations have openWorldHint: false, and the description does not contradict it. It does not cover duplicate handling or conflict resolution, but those are partially covered by the schema's on_conflict parameter.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action, second gives use cases. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the complexity (16 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too brief. It omits important details like write policies, scope/namespace usage, and return behavior, which are needed for effective use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'store with content, metadata, and embedding'. For a tool with 16 parameters, it does not enrich the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 it stores a new memory with automatic vector embedding, and identifies the resource (memory) and action (store). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_update or memory_append by focusing on initial creation.

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 description says 'use this to save information... for later semantic retrieval', giving a clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like memory_update for existing memories, which are important given the many sibling tools.

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/YonasValentin/mcp-memory-graph'

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