Skip to main content
Glama

mcp_engram_thought_tile_create

Create a new Thought Tile to store structured knowledge with bonds and tensor mirror for agent recall, momentum, and auto-linking to primary intent. Supports multiple tile types.

Instructions

Create a new Thought Tile (textual functor payload optimized for agent recall, momentum, NREM, and ki_hijacker). Dual-writes a tensor:tile__ mirror with bonds (goal/trace/spatial). Supports research_offload, state_machine, tabular, knowledge_graph, formal_spec, propose_improvement (verified tensor update on target). Pair with thought_tile_create_visualization for rich human-viewable companion. Auto-links to Primary Intent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesShort human-readable title for the tile
payloadYesStructured JSON payload matching the schema for the chosen tile_type
tile_typeYesresearch_offload | state_machine | tabular | knowledge_graph | formal_spec | propose_improvement | html_visualization | verified_sequence | agent_response (RPT v3 — use mcp_engram_turn_record for turn envelope)
parent_tileNoOptional parent tile for decomposition / result hierarchy
goal_contextNoOptional explicit goal. If omitted, auto-links using primary_goal + recent active goal logic (same as record_reasoning_trace).
process_contextNoOptional process:engram.* key — emits realized_by edge (WS-3)
spatial_referencesNoOptional list of existing concept names (spatial AST nodes, ritual anchors, etc.) this Tile compresses or references. Creates compresses_path / compresses_chain_from relations for trace:* refs.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions dual-write and verified tensor update for propose_improvement but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or any side effects. Lacks clarity on safety and permissions.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be better structured by separating the primary functionality from detailed parameter notes. Still efficient with no wasted sentences.

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?

All 7 parameters are described adequately. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., tile ID or confirmation). For a creation tool, this is a notable gap. The dual-write and bond creation are mentioned but not the output format.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% but description adds value by explaining tile_type options with examples, goal_context auto-linking logic, spatial_references creating compresses_path relations, and process_context emitting realized_by edge. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Create a new Thought Tile' and explains its functionality: dual-writes with bonds, supports multiple tile types, auto-links to Primary Intent. It distinguishes from sibling 'thought_tile_create_visualization' as a companion for human-viewable output.

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 tells when to pair with visualization tool and notes that 'agent_response' tile type should instead use mcp_engram_turn_record for turn envelope. This provides usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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