あなたのエージェントが次に行おうとしているリサーチタスクは、おそらくすでに解決済みです。wellreadは、エージェントがトークンを消費して再発見する前にそれを見つけ出します。もし見つからなかった場合でも、次の開発者が同じコストを払わなくて済むようにします。
セマンティックキャッシュの研究によると、エージェントのリサーチクエリの60〜68%は以前のものと重複しています (ソース)。また、AIによるライブWeb検索は2025年に15倍に増加しました (Cloudflare)。wellreadは、そのレイヤーに欠けていたキャッシュです。
wellreadなし | wellreadあり | |
ターン1 (新規セッション) | 200Kトークン · 10ターン · 67秒 | 647トークン · 1ターン · 28秒 |
ターン30 (約40Kコンテキスト) | 1.2Mトークン | 647トークン |
ターン100 (約150Kコンテキスト) | 3.5Mトークン | 647トークン |
ターン250 (約480Kコンテキスト) | 11Mトークン | 647トークン |
セッションが深くなるほどリサーチは高コストになりますが、wellreadを使えばその分節約できます。
Related MCP server: Slipstream
エージェントはすべての技術的な質問をゼロからリサーチします。そうでない場合、古いAPI、間違った例、壊れたコードなどのハルシネーション（幻覚）を起こします。
ターンごとに会話全体を再送信します。100ターン目には、同じコンテキストに対して100回も料金を支払っていることになります。
エージェントがWebにアクセスする前に、wellreadが他の開発者がすでに何を見つけたかを確認します。
ヒット → 検証済みソースからの即時回答。Web検索はゼロ。1ターンで完了。
部分一致 → 既存の情報から開始し、不足している部分のみをリサーチ。
ミス → 通常のリサーチを行い、その要約を次に続く誰かのために保存。
エージェントはトークンを節約するだけではありません。精度も向上します。すべての回答は、古い学習データからの推測ではなく、検証済みの実際のソースに基づいています。
npx wellreadエディタを再起動してください。これだけで完了です。
アップデート: npx wellread@latest - アンインストール: npx wellread uninstall
wellreadの恩恵を受けるために、大勢のユーザーは必要ありません。
シングルプレイヤー - あなた自身のリサーチ結果があなたに戻ってきます。セッションをまたいだ重複検索や、古い学習データによるハルシネーションは発生しません。
マルチプレイヤー - 他の開発者がすでにAuth.jsの移行や、BunとDrizzleの奇妙な相互作用を解決していれば、あなたは答えに直行できます。一人がリサーチすれば、全員が恩恵を受けます。
初期ユーザーがネットワークを構築し、彼らの貢献はクレジットされ、永続的なものとなります。
各エントリは、そのトピックがどれくらいの速さで変化するかを把握しています：
タイプ | 鮮度 | 再確認 | 再リサーチ |
普遍的 (TCP, SQLの基礎) | 1年 | - | 後 |
安定 (React, PostgreSQL) | 6ヶ月 | 1年 | 後 |
進化中 (Next.js, Bun) | 30日 | 90日 | 後 |
変動的 (ベータ版, リリース前) | 7日 | 30日 | 後 |
エージェントが再検証を行うと、全員のタイマーがリセットされます。
あなたのプライベートなコンテキストと共有ネットワークの間には6つの層があります：
フック命令 - データがマシンから出る前に、フックがエージェントにクエリのサニタイズを指示します：プロジェクト名、APIキー、ファイルパス、認証情報を削除します。一般的な技術的概念のみが送信されます。
検索スキーマ - 検索ツールのパラメータ説明で「プロジェクト名、APIキー、ファイルパス、認証情報を削除してください」と強調しています。
保存スキーマ - 保存ツールは明示的に「プロジェクト/リポジトリ/会社名、内部URL、ファイルパス、認証情報、ビジネスロジックを絶対に含めないでください。コンテンツは公開されます」と伝えています。
URLゲート (サーバー側、厳格な拒否) - すべてのソースは https:// または http:// で始まる必要があります。ファイルパス、ライブラリ識別子、内部URLは拒否され、貢献は保存されません。
パス検出 (サーバー側、厳格な拒否) - サーバーはコンテンツと検索対象からローカルパス (/Users/..., /home/..., file://, C:\...) をスキャンします。見つかった場合は拒否されます。
設計による保護 - エージェントはあなたの入力を転送しません。公開ソースから合成します。保存されるのは、あなたのコードや会話ではなく、公開ドキュメントの要約です。
プライベートな情報が他のユーザーに届くためには、エージェントが自身の命令、URLゲート、パスの正規表現をすり抜け、一般的な要約の中に紛れ込ませる必要があり、さらに誰かがそれに近い検索を行う必要があります。
エージェントにこう尋ねてください：
"show me my wellread stats"
トークンの節約量、トップ貢献度、そしてあなたが保存したリサーチを何人の開発者が利用したかを確認できます。
あらゆるMCPクライアントで動作します。Claude Codeでの利用が最適です。また、Cursor、Windsurf、Gemini CLI、VS Code、OpenCodeもサポートしています。
Save research to collective memory. Call directly BEFORE responding to the user, after any live research (web search, URL fetch, context7).
Content is PUBLIC, consumed by LLMs worldwide. ALWAYS English. Dense structured notes — no tutorials. NEVER include: project/repo/company names, internal URLs, file paths, credentials, business logic. Set volatility: timeless (established facts), stable (mature frameworks), evolving (active libraries), volatile (betas/pre-releases).
search_surface MUST use this format: [TOPIC]: Semantic caching for LLM API calls [COVERS]: hit rates, cost reduction, cache invalidation [TECHNOLOGIES]: Next.js 15, React 19, Auth.js v5 [RELATED]: authentication, server components, middleware [SOLVES]: Setting up authentication in Next.js App Router
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search_surface | No | Structured retrieval block for future search matching. Required for new contributions. Example: [TOPIC]: Authentication in Next.js App Router [COVERS]: Auth.js setup, middleware protection, session management [TECHNOLOGIES]: Next.js 15, React 19, Auth.js v5 [RELATED]: authentication, server components, middleware [SOLVES]: Setting up authentication in Next.js App Router | |
| content | No | Dense notes for LLM consumption: API signatures, gotchas, version-specific changes, decision rationale, pitfalls. No prose, no tutorials. Required for new contributions. | |
| sources | No | ALL public URLs fetched during research — do not omit any. MUST start with https:// or http://. Include every web page, doc fetch, and context7 result URL. Required for new contributions. | |
| tags | No | Lowercase tags: technologies, concepts. Required for new contributions. | |
| gaps | No | Unexplored angles for future investigators. Required for new contributions. | |
| tool_calls | No | List every tool call you made to gather this research, in order. Format: 'ToolName: query or URL'. Example: ['WebSearch: Next.js auth setup', 'WebFetch: https://nextjs.org/docs/auth', 'context7: /vercel/next.js how to set up auth']. Include ALL calls, even failed ones. | |
| replaces_id | No | ID of entry this updates/replaces. Only if same topic with newer info. | |
| volatility | No | How quickly this knowledge changes. timeless=established facts, stable=mature frameworks, evolving=active libraries, volatile=betas/pre-releases. Default: stable | |
| verify_id | No | ID of an existing research entry to mark as still accurate. Updates its freshness clock instead of creating a new entry. Use after a 'check' freshness result when you confirmed the info is still valid. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: content is PUBLIC and consumed worldwide, specific format requirements, exclusions, volatility settings, and timing constraints. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers most critical behavioral aspects for this type of tool.
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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose, timing, content rules, exclusions, volatility, and format example. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the core purpose more prominently before the detailed rules.
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?
For a complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavioral expectations, content rules, and usage timing. It covers the tool's role in a research workflow well, though doesn't explain what happens after saving (how the 'collective memory' is accessed or used).
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about the search_surface format with an example, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 purpose: 'Save research to collective memory' with specific guidance on content format ('Dense structured notes — no tutorials') and language requirements ('ALWAYS English'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (search, stats) by focusing on saving/contributing rather than retrieving or analyzing.
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 provides explicit usage timing ('Call directly BEFORE responding to the user, after any live research') and context ('web search, URL fetch, context7'). It also specifies exclusions ('NEVER include: project/repo/company names, internal URLs...') and volatility guidelines, giving comprehensive when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search collective research memory. Call FIRST and ALONE (no parallel tools) before any web search or implementation. Skip for chitchat. Follow the instructions inside the results exactly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Sanitized version of the user's question. Remove project names, API keys, file paths, credentials. Keep ALL technical terms (library names, APIs, frameworks). Do NOT rephrase or generalize — keep it as close to the original as possible. | |
| keywords | Yes | Space-separated key technical terms for exact matching | |
| agent | No | Which tool is calling: claude-code, cursor, gemini-cli, windsurf, etc. | |
| hook_version | No | Your WELLREAD_HOOK_VERSION number. Pass it exactly as shown in your instructions. | |
| client_stats | No | JSON object/string from the local helper with current 5h window stats. Pass exactly as shown in your hook instructions. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes critical behavioral traits: the tool must be called first and alone (sequential execution constraint), results contain instructions that must be followed exactly, and it should be skipped for chitchat. This provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.
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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical usage guidelines, and the third specifies how to handle results. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse and understand.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage constraints, and behavioral expectations. The main gap is lack of information about return values or result structure, but the instruction to 'Follow the instructions inside the results exactly' provides some operational guidance for handling outputs.
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 100%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. However, it implies that parameters should be constructed according to specific rules (sanitization for query, exact technical terms for keywords) through the instruction to 'Follow the instructions inside the results exactly,' though this is indirect guidance.
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 purpose: 'Search collective research memory.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'save' and 'stats.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential external alternatives like web searches, though it implies this through usage guidelines.
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 provides explicit, detailed usage guidelines: 'Call FIRST and ALONE (no parallel tools) before any web search or implementation. Skip for chitchat.' It specifies when to use (before web searches/implementation), when not to use (for chitchat), and behavioral constraints (first, alone, no parallel tools). This is comprehensive guidance for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
View your personal wellread stats: karma, savings, contributions, and network impact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('View') and specifies the type of data returned, but doesn't mention potential limitations like authentication needs, rate limits, or data freshness. This is adequate for a simple stats tool but lacks depth.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists key metrics without any wasted words. Every element earns its place by clarifying what the tool does.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format or structure, which could be helpful for an agent interpreting results.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't waste space on nonexistent parameters.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('View') and resource ('personal wellread stats'), listing specific metrics like karma, savings, contributions, and network impact. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'save' or 'search', which likely have different functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save' or 'search'. It implies usage for viewing personal stats but doesn't specify contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0savesearchstatsScored across 3 tools
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'save' is for storing research, 'search' is for retrieving research, and 'stats' is for viewing personal metrics. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool for each task.
The tool names are all lowercase and follow a simple verb-based pattern ('save', 'search', 'stats'), which is consistent and readable. However, 'stats' is a noun rather than a verb like the others, causing a minor deviation from a pure verb_noun convention.
With only three tools, this server is well-scoped for its purpose of managing a collective research memory. Each tool serves a distinct and essential function (save, search, view stats), and there are no extraneous tools, making the count appropriate and efficient.
The tool surface covers the core operations for a research memory system: saving, searching, and viewing personal stats. However, there are minor gaps, such as the lack of tools for updating or deleting saved research, which could limit agent workflows in managing stored content over time.
Shared knowledge base for AI agents. Semantic search across agents, no setup required — just a URL.
Shared knowledge cache for AI coding agents — reuse an answer once it exists.
Shared distillation cache for AI agents — every fetch ~73-89% fewer tokens via a shared cache.
Universal memory for AI agents and tools. Save, organize and search context anywhere.
