Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EverOS Codex

EverOS Codex

by gix9303
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

memory_flush

Flush an EverOS session to force memory extraction and commit session data to long-term storage.

Instructions

Manually flush one EverOS session to force extraction.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_flush"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoEverOS project_id. Optional when the MCP can infer a repo-based default from the current workspace.
session_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'force extraction' but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it lacks necessary detail to be fully effective. It could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the meaning of 'force extraction'.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% (only project_id has a description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what session_id represents or how parameters relate to the flush operation.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'flush' and resource 'session', and it distinguishes from siblings like memory_get and memory_save_turn, which have different purposes. However, it does not clarify what 'flush' and 'force extraction' entail operationally.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (memory_get, memory_save_turn, memory_search). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios.

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