Skip to main content
Glama

record_recall_save

Log when a recalled memory saves the user from re-explaining, using the fact ID to verify it was previously recorded. Evidence that recall prevented redundant explanation.

Instructions

Record that a fact you recalled from memory saved the user from re-explaining something to you.

Call this IN THE SAME TURN, the moment it happens. The trigger is concrete: you called query_memory (or read a memory-derived fact), it answered something the user would otherwise have had to tell you again, and the fact was originally written by a DIFFERENT tool or a past session.

That last part is the whole point, and it is why this takes fact_id rather than a written_by string. Pass the fact_id of the fact that helped - every query_memory result carries one. The server reads that edge's own agent_id and uses it as written_by; the caller does not get to assert who wrote a fact.

Until 2026-08-29 written_by was free text supplied by the caller. Nothing checked the fact existed, so the number gating v1a was a string typed by the model being graded. A fact_id is checkable, so the reading is admissible.

recalled_by is you, defaulting to this server's own agent id. If the fact's author and you are the same tool, the save is still recorded but does not count toward the trial's bar - recalling your own note from ten minutes ago is not the thing being measured.

note should be one sentence naming what it saved re-explaining, written so it still makes sense read cold in six months. Recording the identical note twice is a no-op, so a retry after an error is safe.

Do NOT call this speculatively, for a fact you wrote this session, or because a recall was merely interesting. It is evidence for a gate that decides real build work; an inflated count is worse than an empty one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteYes
scopeYes
fact_idYes
recalled_byNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it thoroughly. It discloses idempotency (duplicate note is a no-op), disqualification (same-tool recalls are recorded but do not count), server-side written_by resolution, and the consequences of inflated counts. It also warns that the caller cannot assert authorship.

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 front-loaded with the core action and trigger, then organized into focused paragraphs. It is long, but the behavior is subtle enough to justify the length. The historical note about v1a is arguably redundant for callers, but it does explain why fact_id is required.

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?

The description is unusually complete for a recording tool: it explains when, why, and how to call it, including edge cases and disqualifying conditions. It falls short of a 5 only because the required `scope` parameter remains undocumented and success/error behavior is not explicitly described beyond the duplicate no-op.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for fact_id, note, and recalled_by, going well beyond the bare schema. However, schema coverage is 0% and the required `scope` parameter is never explained, leaving a significant gap in a required field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record that a fact you recalled from memory saved the user from re-explaining something to you.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like query_memory (which reads memory) and write_episode (which writes memory) by positioning it as a post-recall evidence-recording action.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives an explicit trigger condition: call in the same turn, only when query_memory returned a memory-derived fact that would otherwise require re-explanation, and only when the fact was written by another tool or past session. It also lists clear exclusions: do not call speculatively, for facts written this session, or simply because the recall was interesting.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ayushcodes10/echo-mem'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server