Mnemo - Persistent AI Memory

by n24q02m

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

add_memory

Save new facts, preferences, and decisions as categorized memories for persistent AI recall.

Instructions

Store NEW information. Use for preferences, decisions, facts.

ACTION GUIDE — when to use:

Use when saving new information for the first time. Example: content='User prefers dark mode', category='preference', tags=['ui']

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "add_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tags`	No
`content`	Yes
`category`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.6.0Jul 14, 2026

addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

removedOutput schema / properties

Removed value: -{
-  "result": {
-    "title": "Result",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}

removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "result"
-]
```

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"add_memoryOutput"New value: +"add_memoryDictOutput"

Addedv2.1.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it stores new information, but does not detail side effects, limits, or whether it appends or overwrites. Moderate value added.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a structured action guide. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple create tool with 3 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers when to use and gives an example. Could mention return value or limits, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description includes an example with content, category, and tags, giving semantic hints. However, it does not explain parameter types, requiredness, or constraints fully.

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 clearly states 'Store NEW information' and provides examples (preferences, decisions, facts), distinguishing it from siblings like update_memory, delete_memory, and search_memory.

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 ACTION GUIDE explicitly says 'Use when saving new information for the first time' and gives an example. It could mention when not to use (e.g., for updates use update_memory), but it's still clear.

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

Deploy Server