Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unified Memory MCP

Unified Memory MCP

by piligrim-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_reindex

Rebuilds chunks and embeddings for every stored memory. Run it once after enabling fastembed embeddings to make existing memories searchable by semantic vector search.

Instructions

Rebuild chunks + embeddings for all memories. Run once after enabling embeddings (fastembed).

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": "memory_reindex"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.5.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the operation's scope (ALL memories) and idempotency intent ("run once"), which is useful, but it says nothing about cost/duration, whether existing custom chunks are overwritten, or what happens if invoked repeatedly — meaningful gaps for a bulk rebuild.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the operational trigger immediately after. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 parameterless maintenance tool with no output schema and no annotations, purpose plus trigger is close to sufficient, but an agent still lacks the failure/repeat-safety picture for a global rebuild. Adequate minimum-viable coverage rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline of 4 applies; the description adds no claim that would justify going lower.

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: rebuild chunks and embeddings for memories. An agent can distinguish this maintenance operation from the CRUD/search siblings in the list (memory_save, memory_search, memory_sync) without opening a schema. It stops short of naming an actual alternative, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating in an explicit way.

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?

"Run once after enabling embeddings (fastembed)" gives a concrete trigger condition and even implies the when-not (don't run repeatedly). It does not compare against memory_sync or memory_prune, which is the only thing keeping it from 5.

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