memora

memory_create_section

Organize memories by creating section/subsection headers that act as lightweight placeholders, without embeddings or graph visibility.

Instructions

Create a new section/subsection header memory.

Section memories are organizational placeholders that:

Are NOT visible in the graph visualization
Are NOT included in duplicate detection
Do NOT compute embeddings or cross-references

Args: content: Title/description of the section section: Parent section name (e.g., "Architecture", "API") subsection: Subsection path (e.g., "endpoints/auth") project: Optional project the section belongs to; its tag becomes "/sections", or bare "sections" without a project

Returns: Created section memory with auto-assigned tag "/sections" or "sections"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	Yes
`project`	No
`section`	No
`subsection`	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"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.28May 3, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / section / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / section / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / subsection / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / subsection / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
First observedv0.1.0Apr 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

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 clearly states that section memories are organizational placeholders, are excluded from graph visualization and duplicate detection, and do not compute embeddings or cross-references. It also explains the auto-assigned tag behavior, though it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or error cases.

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-organized with a clear opening, bulleted behavioral traits, and structured Args/Returns sections. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The only minor redundancy is repeating the tag assignment behavior in both the project parameter explanation and the Returns section.

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 covers purpose, behavioral constraints, parameter semantics, and the return value's tag behavior. Given there is an output schema and no annotations, this is a complete-enough picture for most call scenarios. It could be more explicit about prerequisites or failure modes, but those are not critical for a simple creation tool.

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. Every parameter is explained: content is the title/description, section is the parent, subsection is the path, and project controls the tag namespace with concrete examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw input 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 'Create a new section/subsection header memory', a specific verb and resource. It further differentiates from sibling creation tools by listing distinctive traits: not graph-visible, not in duplicate detection, no embeddings/cross-references. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to memory_create, memory_create_issue, and memory_create_todo.

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 explains what section memories are and their special properties, which implies when to use this tool. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over alternatives or names any sibling that should be used instead. Usage guidance is therefore more inferred than stated.

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

Deploy Server