Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SharedMemory MCP Server

SharedMemory MCP Server

Official
by sharedmemoryai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

feedback

Rate the relevance of a stored memory to improve future recall quality. Submit positive or negative feedback to refine memory retrieval.

Instructions

Submit feedback on a memory's relevance. Helps improve future recall quality.

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>",
      "feedback": "<feedback>"
    },
    "name": "feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memory_idYesThe UUID of the memory to rate
feedbackYesWhether the memory was relevant/helpful
volume_idNoVolume ID. Uses default if not set.
reasonNoOptional reason for the feedback

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It indicates a write operation and a positive effect on recall, but does not detail side effects, auth requirements, or response format. Basic but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, with no redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values or error conditions. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is well described in schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 clearly states the verb 'Submit' and resource 'feedback on a memory's relevance', with a clear purpose of improving future recall. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools like update_memory or remember, as feedback is a rating mechanism.

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?

The description implies usage context (when you want to provide relevance feedback) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It is clear but not fully explicit.

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