Queue messages to extract and store cross-agent universal memory, enabling agents to share and retrieve past interactions.
Queue cross-agent universal memory extraction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| messages | Yes | ||
| metadata | No | ||
| uui_token | No | ||
| agent_api_key | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that the operation is queued. It does not mention whether the result is retrieved via a job ID, whether extraction creates memories immediately, authentication requirements, idempotency behavior, or side effects.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is drastically under-specified for a five-parameter async tool. This reads as brevity hiding missing information rather than effective conciseness.
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?
There are no annotations and no output schema, and the description omits input semantics, asynchronous job behavior, response format, and tool-selection context. This is inadequate for an agent to safely select or invoke the tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the five parameters. The required 'messages' array, plus optional metadata, uui_token, agent_api_key, and idempotency_key, are entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Queue') and names a resource ('cross-agent universal memory extraction'), giving a rough idea of an asynchronous memory extraction job. However, 'memory extraction' is vague, and the description does not clarify what the resulting memory looks like or how it differs from sibling tools like memoryos_add_memory.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings such as memoryos_add_memory or memoryos_universal_get_context. The 'cross-agent' phrase implies a use case, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.