Skip to main content
Glama
jryom

agentsmd-memory

by jryom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

memory_save

Record durable project decisions or gotchas when completing a task, but only if they prevent likely future mistakes or repeated work. Returns a memory path and merge guidance; does not write files.

Instructions

Consider saving non-obvious project decisions or gotchas at task completion only when they prevent a likely future mistake or substantial repeated work. Skip facts cheaply discoverable from code or docs, task summaries, temporary state, and duplicates. Batch related learnings; no update is usually needed. Returns a resolved memory path, size guidance, and instructions to assess and merge with your own editing tools; never writes files or requires saving a low-value candidate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNoAbsolute existing project directory within advertised workspace roots. Required when multiple roots are available.
learningYesConcise candidate fact, or a small batch of related facts, that would prevent future mistakes or substantial repeated work.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / cwd / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute path of the current project directory."New value: +"Absolute existing project directory within advertised workspace roots. Required when multiple roots are available."
    • changedInput schema / properties / learning / description
      Previous value: -"The durable fact to remember, stated concisely."New value: +"Concise candidate fact, or a small batch of related facts, that would prevent future mistakes or substantial repeated work."
  2. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool returns a resolved path, size guidance, and merge instructions, and that it never writes files. The somewhat ambiguous final clause ('never writes files or requires saving a low-value candidate') muddies whether a write occurs, leaving a small gap.

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 usage guidance is front-loaded well, but the passage is a dense run-on paragraph whose final clause ('never writes files or requires saving a low-value candidate') is grammatically tangled and could mislead. Tightening would improve it without losing content.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what is returned (resolved memory path, size guidance, merge instructions). For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, little is missing; only the write-vs-resolve semantics could be stated more crisply.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning (batching 'related' learnings maps to the learning param), but cwd and learning syntax are fully covered by 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?

The description makes clear this is about capturing non-obvious project decisions/gotchas as memories and resolves them to a memory path, and the closing clause distinguishes its behavior from a plain file-writing save. It does not explicitly name memory_review or memory_forget, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('at task completion only when they prevent a likely future mistake or substantial repeated work'), explicit when-not (cheaply discoverable facts, task summaries, temporary state, duplicates), and batching guidance. This is close to ideal routing guidance.

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