Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openmem-mcp

openmem-mcp

by bcmyguest
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Capture an initiative

memory_capture_initiative

Records an approved feature plan as a knowledge page before coding, capturing what is being built, why, and current intent; link updates to existing initiative pages.

Instructions

Record an approved feature plan as a knowledge page before writing code; relates_to_page_id records a plan change. Skip bug fixes and small tweaks. Hindsight only.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "summary": "<summary>"
    },
    "name": "memory_capture_initiative"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bankNoHindsight bank (use memory_project_scope for the project bank; default openmem-mcp)
titleYesShort, specific initiative name (reuse it on updates)
summaryYesTwo or three sentences: what is being built and why, current intent
relates_to_page_idNoExisting initiative page id when recording a change

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds useful timing and exclusion context, but it does not explain duplicate handling, what happens when relates_to_page_id is omitted, or other operational details beyond the annotation safety profile.

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 short and front-loaded: the core action and timing come first, followed by exclusions. The phrase 'Hindsight only' is terse and somewhat opaque, but the overall structure is efficient.

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?

Given full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety behavior, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool for its intended use. It is not fully complete because ambiguous phrasing like 'Hindsight only' and undefined update/duplicate behavior remain.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only slight context around relates_to_page_id ('records a plan change'), which largely restates the schema's own description, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: record an approved feature plan as a knowledge page. It also scopes the action with timing ('before writing code'), a relationship case ('relates_to_page_id records a plan change'), and exclusions ('Skip bug fixes and small tweaks'), which helps distinguish it from general memory-write siblings.

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 gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Record an approved feature plan ... before writing code') and explicit exclusions ('Skip bug fixes and small tweaks'). It does not, however, name an alternative sibling tool for those excluded cases, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools