Store a new fact or observation in persistent memory and associate it with a specific agent for later recall.
Store a new fact in GrayMatter memory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The observation or fact to remember. | |
| agent_id | Yes | The agent to associate this memory with. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations are all false and provide no meaningful safety or behavior hints. The description merely restates the tool's purpose ('store') without adding operational context such as whether it appends without overwriting, any persistence guarantees, or what happens to existing memories. No contradiction exists, but no behavioral detail is disclosed beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core action, and it is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter write operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, so the description is adequate at a basic level. However, it omits guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings and does not explain what the agent should expect as a result (e.g., confirmation, returned memory ID), leaving a moderate gap for autonomous decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters (text and agent_id) thoroughly. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning: it mentions 'new fact' which mirrors the schema's 'observation or fact', and doesn't clarify formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is clear: 'Store a new fact in GrayMatter memory' has a specific verb and resource, and the action of adding a memory is distinct from the sibling tools (search, reflect, checkpoint). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from these siblings or mention their existence, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_search or memory_reflect. The intended use case (adding a new fact) is only implied by the verb 'store' and the tool name; no explicit context, conditions, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.