Skip to main content
Glama
tinhien11

remem-mcp

by tinhien11
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

scenario_create

Consolidates related memory atoms into a concise scenario summary, enabling efficient recall without individual atoms.

Instructions

Consolidate multiple L1 atoms into an L2 scenario summary. Call this when you have 5+ atoms about the same topic — it creates a high-signal summary that recall injects in ~100 tokens instead of 5+ individual atoms. No LLM needed — you write the summary yourself based on the atoms you've seen.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
summaryYesA 1-3 sentence summary that captures the key insight from these atoms. Write it as a self-contained fact useful on its own.
task_idNoThe task ID. Use this to isolate memory by a specific task. Link captures to a task for finer isolation.
team_idNoThe team ID. Use this to isolate memory by team. When set, all queries filter by this value.
user_idNoThe user ID. Use this to isolate memory by user within a team. When set with team_id, queries filter by both.
agent_idNoThe agent ID. Use this to isolate memory by agent role within a team. Defaults to the detected agent.
atom_idsYesThe L1 atom IDs to consolidate (1-20).
session_keyNoThe session key. Defaults to hash(cwd) so the scenario is scoped to the current project.
persona_tagsNoOptional tags for categorization (e.g., ['database', 'migration']).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / session_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The session key. Defaults to hash(cwd) so the scenario is scoped to the current project.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv0.6.8

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries more burden, and it does add useful behavior context: the result is a high-signal summary injected by recall at ~100 tokens, and the agent writes the summary manually rather than an LLM. However, it does not disclose whether the L1 atoms are preserved, modified, or removed after consolidation, nor any return/error behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and trigger, then adds the key behavioral detail about token efficiency and manual summarization. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is sufficient for a tool with 100% schema coverage: the trigger, the required inputs, and the nature of the summary are covered. It could be more complete by naming alternatives or stating side effects, but the essential invocation context is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: it suggests a 5+ atom threshold, describes the summary as 1–3 sentences and self-contained, and clarifies that the agent must write the summary itself. This helps the agent populate the required parameters correctly.

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?

The description states a specific action (consolidate), resource (L1 atoms), and outcome (L2 scenario summary), so an agent can understand the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'consolidate', but the phrasing and 'scenario summary' framing give it enough identity.

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 an explicit trigger condition ('Call this when you have 5+ atoms about the same topic') and the benefit over individual atoms. It does not spell out when not to use it or name an alternative tool, but the threshold and intent make usage reasonably clear.

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