Skip to main content
Glama
sleepunit-agents

loom

by sleepunit-agents
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

memory_ratify

Idempotent

Approve a pending proposal into a real memory, applying optional edits and committing through validated writes; invalid proposals stay pending with typed reasons.

Instructions

Ratify a pending proposal into a REAL memory. Loads the proposal, applies any optional overrides (your edits on accept), and commits it through the same validated write path as remember — so an invalid proposal is refused with its typed reason and stays pending. On success the memory becomes recallable and the proposal is removed from the queue. This is the gate: no proposal becomes canon without it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesProposal id (from memory_proposals)
ttlNoOverride the proposed TTL on accept
titleNoOverride the proposed title on accept
contentNoOverride the proposed content on accept
projectNoOverride the proposed project on accept
categoryNoOverride the proposed category on accept

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / category / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "user",
-  "project",
-  "self",
-  "feedback",
-  "reference",
-  "pursuit"
-]New value: +[
+  "user",
+  "project",
+  "self",
+  "feedback",
+  "reference",
+  "pursuit",
+  "episode"
+]
  3. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare mutation, idempotency, and non-destructiveness), the description discloses the failure mode ('refused with its typed reason and stays pending') and success side effects ('memory becomes recallable and the proposal is removed from the queue'). This is rich behavioral context an agent needs to reason about outcomes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the override behavior follows logically. Four sentences with one rhetorical line ('This is the gate') that earns modest emphasis but could be trimmed without loss.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile and which has no output schema, the description covers the essential lifecycle: load, override, validate, commit, failure handling, and queue effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the override fields. The description adds a collective framing ('applies any optional overrides (your edits on accept)') but no new per-parameter syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Ratify a pending proposal into a REAL memory', and names the pipeline relationship to remember. An agent can distinguish this acceptance action from siblings like memory_propose and memory_reject without opening any schema.

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 gives clear context ('This is the gate: no proposal becomes canon without it') and implies this is the accept step for a pending proposal. It does not explicitly name the alternative rejection path (memory_reject) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of exhaustive routing.

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