Skip to main content
Glama
Memorable MCP Server
by leouofa

memorable_append_to_memory

Append Markdown content to an existing memory without overwriting its prior body, preserving context while adding new notes or updates.

Instructions

Safely append Markdown content to an existing memory without overwriting its prior body

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "memorable_append_to_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the memory to append to
contentYesMarkdown content to append to the existing memory body
separatorNoSeparator between existing content and appended content (defaults to double newline)
render_markdownNoWhether to return rendered HTML in the response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the central behavior: content is appended, not replaced, so existing data is preserved. It does not cover failure modes (unknown id), required permissions, atomicity, or what the call returns, and the adverb 'Safely' is unsubstantiated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the non-destructive guarantee placed immediately after the action. 'Safely' is the one piece of unearned wording, since nothing in the sentence defines what safety means here.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple four-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential semantics of the operation. The gaps are the absence of annotations and any statement about error behavior or the response shape, which matters for a write operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the separator default and the render_markdown toggle, so the schema already does the explanatory work. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond confirming the appended payload is Markdown, which the schema also states.

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?

States a specific verb ('append') and resource ('Markdown content to an existing memory') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the overwriting sibling memorable_update_memory via 'without overwriting its prior body'. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation is behavioral rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'without overwriting its prior body' implies when to choose this over a full update, but no alternative tool is named and there is no statement of when not to use it or what happens if the memory does not exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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