Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
memory-bank-mcp

memory-bank-mcp

by diaz3618
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

batch_write_files

Write multiple Memory Bank files in a single request with optional optimistic concurrency control via ETags and stop-on-error mode.

Instructions

Write multiple Memory Bank files in a single request. Supports optimistic concurrency via ETags.

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": {
      "files": "<files>"
    },
    "name": "batch_write_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesArray of files to write
stopOnErrorNoWhether to stop on first error (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral insight by mentioning optimistic concurrency via ETags. However, it does not disclose error handling behavior, the atomicity of the batch, or what happens on partial failures.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 the complexity of batch writing with concurrency and potential partial failures, the description lacks details on return values, error formats, and order guarantees. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by relating ifMatchEtag to concurrency control, which clarifies the ETag parameter's purpose. However, it does not explain stopOnError beyond its schema default.

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 clearly states the tool writes multiple Memory Bank files in a single request, with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from its sibling tool write_memory_bank_file, which writes a single file.

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 description implies usage for batch operations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over write_memory_bank_file or what the trade-offs are. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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