nexus-mcp-ci

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Project memory

memory

Destructive

Store, search, and delete project knowledge such as decisions, preferences, conventions, and status across sessions; find notes by meaning rather than exact words.

Instructions

Keep and recall project knowledge across sessions: decisions, preferences, conventions, status. Use action='store' when the user says "remember that..." or a decision is made, action='search' for "what did we decide about...", and action='delete' to remove outdated notes by ID or tags. Notes are stored with the index of this project (the .nexus folder) and found by meaning, not by exact words.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Comma-separated tags (all actions)
`query`	No	What to look for (action='search')
`action`	Yes	'store' saves a note, 'search' finds notes by meaning, 'delete' removes notes
`content`	No	The note to store (action='store')
`memory_id`	No	ID of the note to delete (action='delete')

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedv2.1.0Oct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"'store' (was remember), 'search' (was recall), or 'delete' (was forget)"New value: +"'store' saves a note, 'search' finds notes by meaning, 'delete' removes notes"

addedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Added value: +[
+  "store",
+  "search",
+  "delete"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / content / description

Previous value: -"Memory content to store (action='store')"New value: +"The note to store (action='store')"

removedInput schema / properties / limit

Removed value: -{
-  "default": 5,
-  "description": "Max results (action='search', default 5)",
-  "type": "integer"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / memory_id / description

Previous value: -"Specific memory ID to delete (action='delete')"New value: +"ID of the note to delete (action='delete')"

removedInput schema / properties / memory_type

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "Type/filter, e.g. 'note', 'decision' (store: type; search/delete: filter)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / project

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "default",
-  "description": "Project name for scoping (action='store')",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"Natural language search query (action='search')"New value: +"What to look for (action='search')"

removedInput schema / properties / ttl

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "permanent",
-  "description": "Time-to-live for action='store': 'permanent', 'month', 'week', 'day', 'session'",
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedv1.0.4Jul 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: notes are persisted to the project's .nexus index and retrieval is semantic rather than keyword-based. It stops short of stating whether deletes are recoverable, so it is not a 5.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries actionable content (purpose, per-action triggers, storage/semantics). It runs slightly long across multiple lines, but no sentence is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema description coverage, the description needn't explain return values and correctly focuses on usage. What remains unstated is deletion recovery behavior, a minor gap given the destructive annotation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by tying parameters to actions in prose, notably that delete can target by ID or tags and that search matches by meaning — clarifications that help disambiguate the tags parameter's role across actions.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource pair ('keep and recall project knowledge') and enumerates the three concrete actions (store/search/delete). It differentiates from the sibling 'search' tool by clarifying notes are 'found by meaning, not by exact words' and scoped to the project's .nexus index.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names explicit trigger phrases for each action: 'remember that...' or a decision for store, 'what did we decide about...' for search, and removal of outdated notes by ID or tags for delete. The agent knows exactly when to pick each branch without inference.

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

Deploy Server