continuityos

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

upsert

Create or update a memory by semantic key, preserving history on overwrite. Use for stable values an agent overwrites over time, like config or preferences.

Instructions

Create-or-update a memory by semantic KEY (idempotent). If (namespace,key) exists it is superseded (history kept) and replaced; else created. Use for stable values an agent overwrites over time: a config value, a current decision, a user preference.

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": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "upsert"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	Stable semantic key, e.g. default_model or user.timezone.
`tags`	No
`text`	Yes	The new value.
`namespace`	No		facts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses key behavioral traits: idempotency, history kept on supersede, and replacement semantics. This goes beyond a simple CRUD statement, though it omits details like return values or failure modes.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the primary action and idempotency, the conditional behavior, and when to use it. Front-loaded with the key verb and resource, no fluff.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context well. It could add what happens to tags on update, but overall it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 50% (tags and namespace lack descriptions). The description adds meaning by explaining key as a semantic key and (namespace,key) as the identity, which compensates partially. It does not explain the tags parameter, so it is not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create-or-update a memory by semantic KEY') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting idempotency and the supersede-or-create behavior. It is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 states 'Use for stable values an agent overwrites over time' and gives concrete examples, providing clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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