Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vault-memory

vault-memory

by owrede
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

record_observation

Log a new memory observation for a vault sink using claim, evidence, confidence, and type; provenance fields are auto-filled.

Instructions

Record a new memory observation under the labeled MemorySink for a vault. Required provenance properties (source, confidence, evidence, status, observed_at, type, superseded_by) are auto-filled from arguments; properties is an escape hatch for contract-allowed extras and overrides any sugar default (D-02 — caller-last merge). Writes route through DeliveryAdapter.write() and pass through the centralized provenance validator.

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": {
      "vault": "<vault>",
      "claim": "<claim>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>",
      "confidence": "<confidence>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "record_observation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sinkNoMemory sink name OR full obsidian-fs://… handle. Defaults to the vault's default sink.
typeYesObservation type per the sink contract (e.g. 'observation', 'hypothesis', 'decision')
claimYesShort natural-language statement of the observation (becomes title + body)
vaultYesVault name (registered in [vaults] config block)
evidenceYesDocIds or quoted source spans supporting the claim; empty array allowed
confidenceYesHow the agent arrived at this claim
propertiesNoEscape-hatch: contract-allowed extra properties; merged AFTER sugar args (caller wins)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0-rc.5

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that provenance fields are auto-filled from arguments, that `properties` overrides sugar defaults under a caller-last merge (D-02), and that the write routes through DeliveryAdapter.write() and a centralized provenance validator. That is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations, though the internal component names add little for invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then mechanics, then the override rule. The 'D-02' ticket reference and 'DeliveryAdapter.write()' class name are internal jargon that does not help an agent decide or invoke, but the text is otherwise tight and waste-free.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the write path and provenance handling but omits what a successful call returns (a handle? an id?) and says nothing about failure modes such as contract or validator rejection. Annotations cover the safety profile, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's note on the `properties` escape hatch and merge order largely restates the schema's own wording, adding no new per-parameter syntax or format guidance.

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 and resource: recording a new memory observation under a labeled MemorySink for a vault. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like recall or search, but it never differentiates itself from the other write-side tools (write_note, supersede, update_frontmatter), so an agent must still guess which mutation path applies.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description explains mechanics but never states when to use this tool versus siblings such as write_note or supersede, nor any preconditions (e.g. that the vault must be registered, or that provenance fields are derived rather than supplied). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the required-parameter list.

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