Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Memorable MCP Server

Memorable MCP Server

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

memorable_upload_attachment

Attach one or more files to a Memorable memory via local paths or base64 content, linking documents, images, and other files to stored context.

Instructions

Upload one or more files to attach to a memory in Memorable (accepts local file paths or base64 data)

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>",
      "files": "<files>"
    },
    "name": "memorable_upload_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesFiles to attach (path on disk or base64 content)
memory_idYesUnique identifier of the memory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses little: it says what input forms are accepted but not whether uploads are additive or replacing, size/type limits, required permissions, or whether the memory must pre-exist. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 resource first and the input modes in parentheses; no wasted wording. It is arguably too short for the amount of undisclosed behavior, but nothing is redundant.

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 tool mutates state, has no annotations and no output schema, so the description would need to cover effects and results. It does not say what is returned (attachment identifiers, URLs) or what happens on partial failure with multiple files, leaving the agent unable to predict outcomes.

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%, so both memory_id and the files array (including path/content_base64/filename/content_type) are already documented in the schema. The description's note about local paths or base64 merely restates that; it adds no constraint, format, or precedence guidance (e.g. path vs content_base64 conflict).

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+resource ('Upload ... files to attach to a memory') and names the accepted input forms. It is clear which sibling this is versus list/delete attachment tools, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: it must be called on an existing memory, and it accepts multiple files at once. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over append/create, no prerequisite statement (e.g. that memory_id must already exist), and no note about limits or failure cases.

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