Project Synapse

synapse_remember

Record time-stamped facts with subject, predicate, and object to preserve decisions, observations, and milestones across sessions. Include validity dates, confidence, and source for accurate later recall.

Instructions

Record a time-stamped fact in Synapse's episodic memory.

Use this whenever something is worth remembering across sessions: decisions, observations, "Ty said X on date Y", health/diet/symptom log entries, project milestones.

Args: subject: Who or what the fact is about. Free-form name. predicate: The relationship verb. snake_case preferred (e.g. "started_taking", "moved_to", "decided_to_use"). object: The other side of the relation. valid_from: ISO date or datetime when the fact became true. If omitted, "now" is used. Bare dates → midnight UTC. valid_to: ISO date or datetime when the fact stopped being true. Omit for still-current facts. confidence: 0–1. Default 1.0 for explicit user statements; lower when the agent is inferring. source: Where this fact came from. Defaults to "agent:claude" for things Claude is recording. Use "user" or a filename for facts from explicit user statements or document ingestion. note: Free-form context. Stored in metadata for later recall.

Returns: The fact id (stable content hash — safe to call twice).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`note`	No
`object`	Yes
`source`	No	agent:claude
`subject`	Yes
`valid_to`	No
`predicate`	Yes
`confidence`	No
`valid_from`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency ('safe to call twice'), the return value (fact id), default values for confidence and source, and date semantics (bare dates → midnight UTC). This is comprehensive behavioral context beyond what the schema offers.

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 longer than average but well-structured: an opening purpose, a 'Use this when' block, a parameter list, and a return note. Every section earns its place, though it could be tightened slightly without loss of clarity.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, defaults, return behavior, and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains every parameter (subject, predicate, object, valid_from, valid_to, confidence, source, note) with formats, defaults, and intended usage. It adds substantial value beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 states a specific verb ('record') and resource ('time-stamped fact in Synapse's episodic memory'), with concrete examples of use cases. It clearly differentiates from siblings like synapse_recall, synapse_timeline, and synapse_invalidate by focusing on writing rather than reading or deletion.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says when to use this tool ('whenever something is worth remembering across sessions') and lists categories (decisions, observations, health logs, milestones). It doesn't mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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