memora

memory_create_issue

Record an issue or bug as a persistent memory with status, severity, component, and category fields, and receive an auto-tagged memory for tracking.

Instructions

Create a new issue/bug memory.

Args: content: Description of the issue status: Issue status - "open" (default) or "closed" closed_reason: If closed, the reason - "complete" or "not_planned" severity: Issue severity - "critical", "major", "minor" (default) component: Component/area affected (e.g., "graph", "storage", "api") category: Issue category (e.g., "bug", "enhancement", "performance") project: Optional project the issue belongs to; its tag becomes "/issues", or bare "issues" without a project

Returns: Created issue memory with auto-assigned tag "/issues" or "issues"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`status`	No	open
`content`	Yes
`project`	No
`category`	No
`severity`	No	minor
`component`	No
`closed_reason`	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
- removedInput schema / properties / category / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / category / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / closed_reason / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / closed_reason / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / component / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / component / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
First observedv0.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool creates a memory, auto-assigns a project-scoped tag, handles the 'issues' fallback, and returns the created memory. It does not discuss validation, failure modes, or permissions, but the core side effects and return behavior are transparent.

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 well-organized into a one-line purpose, an Args list, and a Returns line. There is no filler, and the length is justified by the need to document seven parameters clearly. Each sentence or clause earns its place.

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?

The description gives the agent enough to create an issue: inputs, defaults, allowed values, tag behavior, and return value. Minor gaps remain, such as explicit routing against sibling create tools and clarification of whether closed_reason is required when status is 'closed', but overall the tool can be invoked 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 must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Every parameter is explained with plain-language meaning, allowed values, defaults, and the project-to-tag transformation. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare schema property names.

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 object: 'Create a new issue/bug memory.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create tools (e.g., memory_create_todo, memory_create_section) by scoping it to issue/bug memories. It is non-tautological and immediately informative.

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 issue/bug framing implies when this tool should be used, but the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. There is no comparison with memory_create_todo, memory_create_section, or memory_create_batch, so selection guidance is only implicit.

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

Deploy Server