sentarion-mcp

remember

Write a tamper-evident record of an action to both local Humane and hosted ArkHive chains at once, using the birth-issued actor each chain recognizes.

Instructions

Write a tamper-evident record to BOTH chains at once (local Humane + hosted ArkHive). actor = the actor sentarion_birth returned (your birth name); each chain refuses an actor it has not born.

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": {
      "actor": "<actor>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "remember"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`actor`	Yes
`action`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful traits: writes to BOTH chains concurrently, records are tamper-evident, and unknown actors are rejected. However it says nothing about reversibility, idempotency, rate limits, or failure behavior for a mutation tool that touches two external systems.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the actor constraint. No filler, though the inline backtick phrasing is slightly awkward.

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 dual-chain, tamper-evident write with a nested `data` object and no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose and the actor precondition but omits the shape/format of `action` and `data` and what the caller gets back. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains `actor` (the birth name from sentarion_birth), a genuinely useful clarification, while `action` and `data` (the nested payload) remain entirely undocumented.

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 (Write) and resource (tamper-evident record) and specifies the dual destination (local Humane + hosted ArkHive), which is more than a generic write. It contrasts implicitly with read-side siblings like recall, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a real precondition: actor must be the value sentarion_birth returned, and chains 'refuse an actor it has not born'. This implies the birth tool must run first, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g., orchestrate_and_record).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server