Skip to main content
Glama

rush_memory

Query, write, or promote cross-tool memory artifacts in the typed artifact store, enabling recall and maintenance of shared context across tools.

Instructions

Query, write, or promote a cross-tool memory artifact in the typed artifact store. Returns {status, findings[], summary}; write/promote/maintain/verify_attempt require explicit permissions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
taskNo
queryNo
sourceNo
contentNo
requestNo
subjectNo
operationNoask
allow_slowNo
batch_sizeNo
symbol_refNo
allow_buildNo
source_kindNolocal_tool
user_statedNo
allow_browserNo
allow_networkNo
allow_downloadNo
include_archivedNo
allow_cache_writeNo
candidate_sourcesNo
session_allowlistNo
allow_artifact_writeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNo
toolNo
engineNo
statusNo
metricsNo
summaryNo
findingsNo
metadataNo
artifactsNo
duration_msNo
review_kindNo
engine_versionNo
review_providerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.2

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description supplies useful behavioral details: the return envelope ({status, findings[], summary}) and the fact that certain operations require explicit permissions. However, it does not disclose side effects of destructive operations, caching/network implications, or the effects of the many allow_* flags, so it is only partially transparent.

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 two sentences are tight and front-load the main actions, and neither sentence is wasted. Yet the description is under-sized for the tool's complexity: a 22-operation/22-parameter surface needs more than a two-sentence overview.

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?

The return-shape and permission hints are helpful, but the tool is highly complex and the description omits operation semantics, parameter roles, and selection guidance. An agent could not confidently choose among delete/edit/archive/maintain/etc., so the definition is materially incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description had to explain the 22 parameters, but it does not mention path, query, content, request, subject, candidate_sources, or any operation values beyond three. The permission warning is the only parameter-adjacent info, and it does not help an agent know what values to supply.

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 names a specific resource ('cross-tool memory artifact in the typed artifact store') with concrete verbs ('Query, write, or promote'), which makes the tool's core purpose clear and distinguishes it from the code-quality siblings. It loses a point because the tool actually supports 22 operations, including delete/edit/archive, that the description does not hint at.

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 given on when to call rush_memory versus alternatives such as rush_context_retrieve or rush_context_pack, and the description does not state conditions for choosing among its own operations. The only usage-related note is a permission warning, which is a precondition rather than a selection rule.

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