On Board

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_checkpoint

Save a full project-state checkpoint to shared memory and a standalone file before risky operations or at 10–15 minute intervals, with paths restricted to the project.

Instructions

Full state checkpoint. Do every 10-15 min or before risky ops. Saves both as memory entry AND standalone file; rejected outright if .agent-mem/checkpoints resolves outside the project.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "memory_checkpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.0.4Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds real value beyond them: dual persistence (memory entry AND file) and an explicit rejection condition when the checkpoint path resolves outside the project — a guardrail the agent would otherwise only discover by failing.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information (what, when, and a safety constraint), with the core action front-loaded. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the failure mode is covered. But for a structured, multi-field checkpoint payload with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the agent guessing about what content to capture.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the five input fields (summary, blockers, agent_name, active_branch, remaining_tasks). For a checkpoint tool, guidance on what belongs in summary vs. remaining_tasks isn't inferable from bare titles alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and artifact: saves a 'full state checkpoint' both as a memory entry and a standalone file. This distinguishes it somewhat from siblings like memory_write and memory_update_state, though it never names them directly.

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?

'Do every 10-15 min or before risky ops' gives an explicit cadence and trigger condition, which is unusually actionable. It stops short of naming alternatives (memory_update_state, memory_compact) or when-not-to-use cases.

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