spatial-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remember_batch

Store multiple memories at once, each with optional tags, metadata, importance, and namespace, to persist related information efficiently in one request.

Instructions

Store multiple memories efficiently in a single operation.

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": {
      "memories": "<memories>"
    },
    "name": "remember_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Project scope for this operation. Omit to auto-detect from environment. Use "*" to search across all projects.
`memories`	Yes	Array of memories to store
`_agent_id`	No	Optional agent identifier for request tracing and per-agent rate limiting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.11.4Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says storing is 'efficient', but does not explain side effects, overwrite behavior, project scoping behavior, or what happens to failed items in the batch.

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 one short sentence and front-loads the core action. The word 'efficiently' adds little, but the overall structure is appropriately minimal and scannable.

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?

For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent gets no sense of return value, failure handling, project scoping, or behavioral constraints beyond 'store multiple memories'.

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 `project`, `memories`, and `_agent_id`. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond 'multiple memories', so it stays at the baseline.

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 action ('Store') and resource ('memories'), and clarifies the batching aspect with 'multiple memories' and 'single operation'. It does not explicitly name sibling distinctions, but the batch nature is clear enough to separate it from 'remember'.

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 phrase 'efficiently in a single operation' implies this tool is for storing multiple memories at once, which is a reasonable usage signal. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for single-memory storage.

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