Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_engram_record_reasoning_trace

Records structured reasoning traces to capture decision points, justifications, and forks for future agent continuation.

Instructions

Record a structured reasoning trace segment as first-class serial memory. This is the primary mechanism for automatic capture of decision points, justifications, and forks during active work (see engram-working-memory Rule 5 and Spatial Discipline). Produces well-named trace:* blocks that the ki_hijacker surfaces in the Ritual + Reasoning Trajectory and that session_end can later compress via 0x10 functors. PREFERRED over free-form notes for anything that affects future agent continuation. Call from within the ritual disciplines at major forks, pre-edit justifications, and post-delta decisions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
denyNoAlternatives, risks, or prior positions being rejected with justification (A/D/R triad; optional)
affirmNoCore positive claim, intent, or state being advanced (A/D/R triad: assertion/decision/rationale; optional but recommended for high-stakes traces)
reconcileNoSynthesis step — how this resolves tension or advances coherence (ZEDO-like 'fruit' carrier per logophysics mapping; optional)
prev_traceNoExact concept name of the previous trace segment in this chain (for linking)
goal_contextNoGoal ID this trace serves (optional but strongly recommended when goals are active)
justificationYesWhy this path was chosen (the positive reasons)
decision_pointYesThe question, fork, or decision at hand (short and precise)
falsifiabilityNoWhat new information or outcome would cause this decision to be reconsidered (optional)
ritual_contextNoThe active ritual or self-model anchor this trace relates to (e.g. 'ritual:wake_up_anchor')
spatial_contextNoCode locus as file.rs:line (e.g. store.rs:706). Absolute paths normalized to file.rs:line. File-only accepted with soft warning; ENGRAM_REQUIRE_LINE_CONTEXT=1 hard-rejects missing :line.
related_entitiesNoComma-separated list of related concepts (spatial AST nodes, ritual anchors, conv:arc, etc.)
alternatives_consideredNoAlternatives that were seriously evaluated and why they were set aside (optional but strongly recommended)
Behavior4/5

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

Describes that the tool produces well-named trace:* blocks, links to other mechanisms (ki_hijacker, session_end), and mentions the A/D/R triad. Without annotations, it provides good behavioral context, though it could elaborate on side effects like persistence.

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?

Description is concise yet complete, with the key purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Provides rich context about the engram system and trace usage. However, it lacks information about the return value or output, which would improve completeness.

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 covers all 12 parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not significantly add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool records a structured reasoning trace segment as first-class serial memory. It distinguishes from free-form notes and sibling tools like mcp_engram_quick_trace by emphasizing its role for automatic capture of decision points and justifications.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: at major forks, pre-edit justifications, and post-delta decisions. Also notes it is preferred over free-form notes for anything affecting future continuation, providing clear context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/staticroostermedia-arch/engram'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server