memora

memory_store_document

Store a markdown document as a root memory with searchable fragments, enabling later retrieval of either the full document or individual claims, plans, and risks.

Instructions

Store a structured document as a root memory + searchable fragments.

Parses markdown into typed fragments (claims, plan items, references, risks, section chunks) that are individually searchable while the full document remains retrievable as a unit.

Args: content: Full markdown document content document_key: Stable identifier (e.g. "research/memora-enhancements-2026-04-08") version: Document version (default: 1). If >1, supersedes previous version. tags: Tags applied to root and fragments metadata: Additional metadata merged into root and fragments skip_fragment_crossrefs: If True, fragments skip crossref computation (default: True) project: Optional project the document belongs to: recorded on the root and every fragment, whose tag becomes "/documents" (bare "documents" without a project)

Returns: {document_key, root_id, fragment_count, node_map: {node_kind: [ids]}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`content`	Yes
`project`	No
`version`	No
`metadata`	No
`document_key`	Yes
`skip_fragment_crossrefs`	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"
+}

Addedv0.2.28May 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the parsing side effect, that version >1 supersedes the previous version, that crossref computation is skipped by default, and that tags/metadata/project propagate to root and fragments (including the '<project>/documents' tag transform). It stops short of a 5 by not stating same-key/same-version re-store semantics or permission requirements, but this is substantial behavioral disclosure.

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 summary is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a cleanly organized Args and Returns structure. Nothing is filler, but the prose is dense in places, particularly the project parameter description which is somewhat convoluted. Appropriately sized for a complex 7-parameter tool, though not maximally tight.

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 high-complexity tool (7 params, nested metadata object, markdown parsing, versioning, fragment propagation) with zero annotations and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, side effects, defaults, and the return shape. The remaining gaps — same-key re-store behavior and explicit sibling differentiation — are minor relative to the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description fully compensates with an Args section that documents all 7 parameters with real semantics beyond names/types: defaults (version default 1, skip_fragment_crossrefs default True), side effects (tags/metadata merged into root and fragments), and behavioral rules (version >1 supersedes; project tag becomes '<project>/documents'). Every parameter gains meaning the schema alone lacks.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Store a structured document as a root memory + searchable fragments') and the second sentence details the mechanism ('Parses markdown into typed fragments... while the full document remains retrievable as a unit'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like memory_create, memory_create_batch, and memory_create_section by emphasizing the whole-document-plus-fragments structure.

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 context is implied through the mechanism described (markdown documents that should be split into searchable typed fragments), but the description never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives such as memory_create, memory_create_batch, or memory_absorb, nor does it name any exclusions or sibling alternatives.

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

Deploy Server