spatial-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remember

Store new memories with tags, metadata, and importance scores in a persistent spatial memory system. Organize knowledge by project or namespace for later retrieval.

Instructions

Store a new memory in the spatial memory system.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "remember"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No	Optional tags for categorization
`content`	Yes	The text content to remember
`project`	No	Project scope for this operation. Omit to auto-detect from environment. Use "*" to search across all projects.
`metadata`	No	Optional metadata to attach to the memory
`_agent_id`	No	Optional agent identifier for request tracing and per-agent rate limiting.
`namespace`	No	Namespace for organizing memories (default: 'default')	default
`importance`	No	Importance score from 0.0 to 1.0 (default: 0.5)
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional unique key for idempotent writes. If the same key is used again, returns the cached result instead of creating a duplicate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.4Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Store a new memory' and does not mention side effects, duplicate handling, auto-detection of project/namespace, rate limiting, or any write-operation caveats. The schema mentions idempotency behavior, but the description itself adds little beyond the basic action.

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 a single focused sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action immediately and does not bury key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having eight parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only one sentence of context. It does not explain return behavior, side effects, or operational considerations, leaving much for the agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but because the schema is thorough, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Store') and resource ('a new memory in the spatial memory system'), making the core function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like forget and recall, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from remember_batch.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as remember_batch, recall, or reinforce. The description provides no context for selection or exclusions.

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