Stores a fact in encrypted, private memory under a permitted scope, so an AI agent can retain user-approved context without exposing plaintext to the server.
Store a fact in encrypted memory under a permitted scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes | ||
| fact_text | Yes | ||
| retention | No | 30d |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and mostly doesn't. "Encrypted memory" and "permitted scope" hint at security and permission constraints, but nothing is said about required auth, what happens to existing similar facts (overwrite/dedupe/append), retention expiry behavior, or failure modes for an unpemitted scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. Its terseness is a completeness problem rather than a verbosity problem, so it scores well here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, zero schema coverage, and an opaque required "scope" string, this is under-specified. The output schema removes the need to describe return values, but key input semantics (scope vocabulary, retention effect) and write behavior remain unknown.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. "Fact" and "permitted scope" loosely map to fact_text and scope (the latter gaining only the vague qualifier "permitted"), while the retention parameter and its 30d default are never mentioned and no valid scope values are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ("Store") and resource ("a fact in encrypted memory"), which is far better than a tautology. The store-vs-recall split against the sibling recall_context is strongly implied but never made explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative; recall_context is never referenced. The agent must infer the write-vs-read division of labor from the verb alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.