Store reusable code patterns, solutions, or insights in persistent memory so developers can retrieve them later.
Save a code pattern, solution, or insight to persistent memory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | The code itself | |
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | Pattern name | |
| tags | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| signature | No | ||
| sourcePath | No | ||
| sourceRepo | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| sourceCommitSha | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only asserts that storage is 'persistent'. It does not disclose overwrite/dedup behavior, key uniqueness on 'name', failure modes, or what happens when a pattern already exists. For a mutation-equivalent persistence tool this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single well-formed sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the coverage gaps rather than a sign of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A 10-parameter, 2-required persistence tool with no annotations and no output schema gets only one sentence. The agent lacks the information needed to populate the eight optional fields or to understand storage semantics and return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, so most of the 10 parameters (tags, language, signature, sourcePath, sourceRepo, sourceCommitSha, description, code) are undocumented. The description mentions three enum kinds ('pattern, solution, insight') but adds no format, required-field, or field-selection meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('code pattern, solution, or insight') plus the destination ('persistent memory'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from read-side siblings like memory.recall, but never explicitly names any alternative. Clear purpose, weak sibling routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as memory.recall, memory.evolve, or memory.link. The agent must infer that 'store' is the write counterpart in the memory family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.