Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kernl

kernl

by fastslack
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

kernel_chat_recall

Manually reinforce a memory node to mark it as important and slow decay, so key chat context stays available for later recall.

Instructions

Reinforce a memory node manually, boosting its strength against decay. Use this to mark a memory as important.

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "kernel_chat_recall"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memory_idYesMemory node ID (same as message ID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the immediate effect (strength boost against decay) but says nothing about idempotency, whether repeated calls stack the boost, whether the change is reversible, permissions required, or what the call returns — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with the effect front-loaded; nothing is buried or wasted. 'Manually' is mildly redundant but harmless.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and its effect. However, with zero annotations, the missing mutation semantics (idempotency, reversibility, response) leave an agent unsure how to invoke it repeatedly or verify success.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage, 'Memory node ID (same as message ID)'), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no further meaning about the ID format, but none is needed beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reinforce') and resource ('a memory node'), plus the effect ('boosting its strength against decay'), so an agent understands the operation. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling kernel_brain_recall, leaving ambiguity about which recall path applies to chat memories.

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?

'Use this to mark a memory as important' gives a single implied when-to-use condition. There is no guidance on when not to use it, how it differs from kernel_brain_recall, or whether it should be called after retrieval events.

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