memora

memory_create

Save a new memory entry with content, tags, and metadata to the memora server, and optionally find similar memories for consolidation to keep knowledge organized.

Instructions

Create a new memory entry.

Args: content: The memory content text metadata: Optional metadata dictionary tags: Optional list of tags suggest_similar: If True, find similar memories and suggest consolidation (default: True) similarity_threshold: Minimum similarity score for suggestions (default: 0.2) response_mode: "full" (default) or "minimal" response payload size project: Optional project this memory belongs to (e.g. "clmux"). Recorded as metadata.project and used for section and tag prefixing. Without it, the project comes only from metadata.project or a tag naming a project configured in MEMORA_PROJECTS; it is never guessed from the text (issue #47).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`tags`	No
`content`	Yes
`project`	No
`metadata`	No
`response_mode`	No	full
`suggest_similar`	No
`similarity_threshold`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.6Sep 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / project

Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.2.28May 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / metadata / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

removedInput schema / properties / metadata / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / metadata / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```

removedInput schema / properties / tags / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / tags / items
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / tags / type
```
Added value: +"array"
```

First observedv0.1.0Apr 2, 2026

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 must disclose behavior itself. It does so effectively: it explains suggest_similar triggers consolidation suggestions, describes project resolution rules (never guessed from text, issue #47), and notes response_mode controls payload size. This goes beyond the schema, though it omits details like whether the creation is idempotent or what happens on duplicate content.

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 description is well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a readable bulleted list of arguments. It is slightly verbose in places (e.g., the project explanation) but generally efficient. The front-loaded purpose ensures immediate orientation.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and a nested object, the description covers all essential usage details: parameter meaning, defaults, and behavioral nuances (like project fallback). An output schema exists, so the lack of return-value description is acceptable. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It successfully explains every parameter: content, metadata, tags, suggest_similar, similarity_threshold, response_mode, and project. It clarifies defaults and behavior for each, compensating completely for the schema's lack of prose.

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 'Create a new memory entry,' a clear verb+resource statement. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tools like memory_create_issue or memory_create_todo, so an agent may not know when to choose this generic creator over the specialized ones.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither lists conditions that favor memory_create nor excludes scenarios better served by memory_create_issue or memory_create_section. The only implicit hint is that specialized creators exist, but no criteria are given.

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

Deploy Server