DUMEdb

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

dume_commit_state

Atomically commit a state register mutation to DUMEdb LMDB storage, resolving or auto-registering opcode schemas and packing values into aligned 32-byte records.

Instructions

Atomically commits a discrete state register mutation to DUMEdb LMDB storage.
Resolves opcode_name from SchemaDictionary (or auto-registers novel schema)
and packs value into a hardware-aligned 32-byte record.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dume_commit_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`value`	No
`entity_id`	No	MadBrad-Nostra-01
`opcode_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses atomicity, schema auto-registration for novel opcodes, and 32-byte record packing, but omits mutation risk, overwrite semantics, required permissions, and error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words, and the core action and storage target are front-loaded. The second sentence adds useful implementation context without rambling.

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 is a mutation operation with no annotations, zero schema description coverage, and an output schema that handles return values. The description leaves out entity_id semantics, mutation risks, and usage context, making it insufficient for fully confident invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It partially explains opcode_name (resolved from SchemaDictionary or auto-registered) and value (packed into a hardware-aligned 32-byte record), but entity_id is entirely undocumented and value formats are not clarified.

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 verb ('commits') and resource ('discrete state register mutation') and identifies the storage backend ('DUMEdb LMDB storage'). It clearly contrasts with read-oriented siblings like dume_read_state, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

The description explains what the tool does mechanically but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as dume_read_state or dume_query. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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

Deploy Server