Memory MCP

consolidate

Merge near-duplicate memories within a project to keep stored project knowledge clean and reduce redundancy.

Instructions

Merge near-duplicate memories within a project to keep memory clean.

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": "consolidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for what is clearly a mutation operation. It never says whether merges are reversible, what happens to the original memories (deleted vs archived), what threshold defines "near-duplicate", or whether confirmation is needed — all critical for a destructive consolidation call.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. Every word carries weight and there is no redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is too thin. Missing dedup criteria, reversibility, and behavior of the null project_name default leave real gaps for correct 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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter project_name is nullable with default null, yet the description says only "within a project". It does not explain what happens when project_name is omitted — whether it consolidates across all projects or errors — which is the one semantic detail the schema cannot supply.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ("merge near-duplicate memories") plus a scope ("within a project"), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like remember, update_memory, or forget. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling handles the non-duplicate case, so it isn't a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The trailing clause "to keep memory clean" implies the usage context (periodic maintenance of redundant entries), but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative named. An agent can guess that update_memory is for single edits and this is for bulk dedup, but the definition never says so.

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

Deploy Server