Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ragionex Memory MCP

Ragionex Memory MCP

Official
by ragionex
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Save a memory

ragionex_save_memory

Saves one durable English topic as a new record in the selected Vault; recall related records first and update existing ones instead of creating duplicates.

Instructions

Save one durable topic as a new record in the selected Vault. Requires create permission. Recall the topic first: when a related record exists, update it with ragionex_update_memory instead of saving a copy. Content is English. The priority rule in the user's agent rules file defines save and update behavior.

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": "ragionex_save_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesEnglish content for one durable topic, written so a reader in a fresh session understands it. Keep related details together; split facts that can change independently into separate saves, one call each.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"The content to remember. Plain text, one focused fact per call. DO: 'The user prefers Fraunces for headings.', 'Decision: use 4-space indents in all Python files.', 'The user's deployment target is Cloudflare Workers, not Vercel.'. AVOID bundling unrelated facts in one entry like 'The user likes Fraunces AND prefers 4-space indents AND deploys to Cloudflare' -- save those as three separate memories so each one can surface independently in future searches."New value: +"English content for one durable topic, written so a reader in a fresh session understands it. Keep related details together; split facts that can change independently into separate saves, one call each."
    • removedInput schema / properties / content / maxLength
      Removed value: -50000
    • removedInput schema / properties / project
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Project label, slugified `^[a-z0-9-]+$`. Only two kinds: the current project's folder name (cwd basename) for facts about this codebase, or 'general' for facts about the user or all projects. See the priority rule for details. Do not invent other labels and do not use the full path.",
-  "maxLength": 50,
-  "minLength": 1,
-  "pattern": "^[a-z0-9-]{1,50}$",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "content",
-  "project"
-]New value: +[
+  "content"
+]
  2. First observedv0.5.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds valuable context beyond them: create permission is required, content language is English, and the user's agent-rules file governs priority behavior. It does not state the return value or what happens on duplicate saves, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the recall-first rule and the alternative. The trailing sentence about the agent-rules priority rule is slightly opaque but earns its place as a behavior pointer.

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 one-parameter write tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers permission needs, the save-vs-update decision, and language constraints. Only the response shape (e.g., returned id) is unaddressed, a minor gap.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines the content field, its minLength, and the splitting guidance. The description's 'Content is English' largely duplicates what the schema says, so it adds only marginal value over the structured field.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Save one durable topic as a new record in the selected Vault') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling ragionex_update_memory, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use (save a new topic), a precondition (recall the topic first), and the alternative with its selecting condition (use ragionex_update_memory when a related record exists). Nothing is left to inference.

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