Capture decisions, facts, or preferences into persistent local memory with optional tags for later filtering.
Capture a piece of local working context (a decision, a fact, a preference) into persistent memory. Nothing is uploaded to the cloud unless HYPERMARROW_ENDPOINT is set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Optional tags for later filtering. | |
| context | Yes | The text to remember. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the privacy-relevant detail that nothing is uploaded to the cloud unless HYPERMARROW_ENDPOINT is set, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, or return values, so it's only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the privacy note is placed second, which is appropriate. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple write-oriented tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. It doesn't explicitly describe return values or error conditions, but these are not critical for a straightforward 'record' action. The schema fills in parameter details, so the description is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% – both parameters have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Capture') and resource ('local working context' into 'persistent memory'), making the tool's core function obvious. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like recall_memory or consolidate, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer this is for storing information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (recall_memory, consolidate, file_anchor). The purpose implies it's for writing to memory, but there is no explicit statement of when it should be preferred or avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.