mnemostack

Mnemostack Remember

mnemostack_remember

Store a tenant-scoped memory with server-side embedding and deterministic ids, so repeated content deduplicates instead of creating a second copy.

Instructions

Store a memory for the caller's tenant (the write counterpart of mnemostack_search).

A write tool: requires the write scope, embeds server-side, and stamps the process key's tenant so the memory lands in — and is recallable from — exactly this tenant's scope. Ids are deterministic from (source, offset, text): retries and repeated content return duplicate without a second embedding call. Long documents pass chunk=true and yield one result per chunk. Use mnemostack_invalidate to retract a stored memory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Optional tags stored in the payload.
`text`	Yes	The memory content to store. Embedded server-side. Plain items are capped at 32768 characters; longer documents need chunk=true.
`chunk`	No	Split a long document server-side into the same fixed character windows `mnemostack index` uses (identical chunk ids). Requires a non-empty source.
`offset`	No	Position within `source` for multi-part documents.
`source`	No	Logical origin (e.g. 'chat/2026-08-19'). With `offset` it forms the deterministic id: re-sending the same content is a no-cost duplicate, never a second copy.
`metadata`	No	Free payload fields, filterable at recall. Server-reserved keys (underscore-prefixed, structural ones like tenant_id/source, tags/timestamp — use their dedicated parameters — and the lifecycle marker invalidated_at, settable only via mnemostack_invalidate) are rejected.
`timestamp`	No	Event time of the content (ISO-8601); drives temporal recall.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.3.1Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the required write scope, that embedding happens server-side, that the process key's tenant is stamped, the deterministic id derivation from (source, offset, text), the duplicate-on-retry behavior with no second embedding call, and the one-result-per-chunk outcome. These are non-obvious runtime traits that materially change how an agent calls the tool.

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 purpose and safety profile before secondary details, and every sentence carries information. Slightly longer than needed since the deterministic-id/duplicate behavior is repeated from the `source` and `offset` schema descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description supplies the missing auth scope, tenancy semantics, and idempotency model, while the output schema handles return values. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with constraints and defaults, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the chunk/source/offset interaction but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Store a memory for the caller's tenant') and immediately anchors it against a sibling ('the write counterpart of mnemostack_search'). An agent can distinguish this from search/invalidate/resolve without opening any schema.

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?

Names the retraction alternative explicitly ('Use mnemostack_invalidate to retract a stored memory') and gives a conditional usage rule for chunk=true on long documents. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool (e.g. when to prefer mnemostack_feedback or resolve for updating existing state).

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

Deploy Server