Skip to main content
Glama
max-ramas

RMS Memory MCP

by max-ramas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

rms_write

Save new architectural decisions, constraints, development rules, or project context to the RMS Memory vault. Use this tool PROACTIVELY at the end of a task if you learned a new user preference, solved a tricky bug, or made a new…

Instructions

Save new architectural decisions, constraints, development rules, or project context to the RMS Memory vault. Use this tool PROACTIVELY at the end of a task if you learned a new user preference, solved a tricky bug, or made a new architectural decision.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
modeYesWrite mode.
pathYesRelative path to save the document (e.g., 'decisions/001-db.md').
pinnedNoWhen true, the note bypasses temporal and min_confidence recall gates (status still applies).
sourceNoOptional free-text citation or source reference for this record.
statusNoOptional lifecycle status: active, draft, or superseded.
contentYesThe markdown content to write.
dry_runNoWhen true, classify create/update/noop and return a JSON preview without writing disk or touching the index. Defaults to false.
projectNoRegistered project key, used when the MCP client did not provide a workspace root.
confidenceNoOptional confidence score (0.0–1.0) indicating reliability of this record.
supersedesNoOptional relative vault path of a prior note to soft-supersede (marks it status=superseded and links both sides).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "When true, classify create/update/noop and return a JSON preview without writing disk or touching the index. Defaults to false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet only states that the tool saves content. It does not mention side effects such as writing to disk, adding to the index, mode-specific overwrite/append behavior, or soft-superseding behavior, all of which an agent must know for a write operation.

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 deliver the core purpose and the key usage trigger with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the proactive usage cue is placed immediately after.

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 complex (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the description only covers purpose and one usage pattern. It omits expected return values, operational side effects, and how modes (create/append/replace) affect behavior, leaving a substantial gap for a write tool.

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 91%, so the input schema already documents the 11 parameters in detail. The description adds high-level context about what kind of content belongs in the vault, but no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Save') and a concrete resource ('new architectural decisions, constraints, development rules, or project context') targeted at the RMS Memory vault. This clearly differentiates the tool from the read/search/prune siblings, which operate on the same vault but do not write.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Use this tool PROACTIVELY at the end of a task if you learned a new user preference, solved a tricky bug, or made a new architectural decision.' It does not offer when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as rms_checkpoint_save, so it stops short of the full 5.

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