Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unified Memory MCP

Unified Memory MCP

by piligrim-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_sync

Pull Claude's file memories into the local store, updating and re-embedding only files whose content changed. Runs automatically on server start.

Instructions

Pull Claude's file memories (*.md) into the store. Idempotent and cheap: only files whose content changed are rewritten and re-embedded. Runs automatically on server start.

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_sync"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.5.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses idempotency and cost ("only files whose content changed are rewritten and re-embedded") and the automatic-on-start trigger. It stops short of describing failure modes, permissions, or what the operation returns, but the core behavioral traits are exposed.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the action (pull file memories into the store) before qualifying cost and trigger. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-annotation tool this is nearly complete: what it does, its incremental behavior, and when it fires are all covered. The only missing element is any indication of outcome or error behavior, which matters slightly more given there is no output schema.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain and the description does not fabricate any.

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 ("Pull"), resource ("Claude's file memories (*.md)"), and destination ("the store"). It distinguishes itself from write tools like memory_save, but does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings memory_reindex or memory_bootstrap, leaving some ambiguity about how they differ.

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 note that it "Runs automatically on server start" implies an agent rarely needs to call it manually, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when an agent should invoke it versus memory_reindex or memory_bootstrap, nor any exclusion conditions.

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