Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
open-memex

open-memex

by stoneskin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

memory_propose

Copy personal memories into an open-memex project's outbox as review drafts, keeping originals intact. Use it to route personal knowledge into a project's review flow before submitting to the repo.

Instructions

Copy personal memories into the project outbox as review drafts. The personal originals stay put. Use this when personal knowledge should enter a project's review flow; memory_submit then moves the drafts into the repo, and memory_promote advances drafts already there. (MCP server and the open-memex propose CLI; the opencode native plugin does not expose this tool.)

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "memory_propose"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesPersonal memory ids to copy into the project outbox.
localApproveNoSingle-developer shortcut: mark the copies approved immediately.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it clarifies that this is a copy (originals remain) rather than a move, and discloses surface availability (MCP server and CLI, not the opencode native plugin). It does not describe the resulting draft state in detail, keeping it short of a 5.

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, then the usage rule, then the alternative routing, all in three compact sentences. The trailing parenthetical on server/CLI availability is useful but slightly tangential; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a non-destructive write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers action, safety semantics, lifecycle position, and environment availability. Minor gaps remain about what a draft looks like and where the outbox lives, but nothing needed 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 coverage is 100%, including a description for localApprove, so the schema carries both parameters fully. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides (the word 'copy' loosely implies ids), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Copy personal memories into the project outbox as review drafts,' plus the clarifying clause that originals stay put. It explicitly distinguishes itself from memory_submit (moves drafts into the repo) and memory_promote (advances drafts already there), so an agent can route between the three without opening schemas.

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?

States the selecting condition explicitly ('Use this when personal knowledge should enter a project's review flow') and names the two adjacent alternatives with their distinct roles. This is a complete when/when-not map for the promote/submit/propose cluster.

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