Add a durable memory entry with content and optional metadata like tags, type, and importance for later retrieval.
Add durable memory. Exact normalized duplicates in the same scope return the existing ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| expires_at | No | ||
| importance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by mentioning 'durable' and the normalized duplicate handling. It does not contradict the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The added details are useful but not extensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. It avoids unnecessary detail and gets straight to the point. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, the description omits critical context such as what the return value is for new entries (only mentions duplicates), what 'scope' refers to, and whether any side effects occur (e.g., persistence guarantees). Given the complexity of the schema, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any of the 10 parameters. It only vaguely references 'same scope' without mapping to actual fields like namespace or project. This does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's primary action: adding durable memory. It also highlights the unique duplicate-handling behavior, which distinguishes it from other memory-related tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar operations like memory_import or memory_restore.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies an idempotent behavior (duplicate returns existing ID) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as memory_import or memory_update. No direct comparison or conditional usage is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.