THOR is a local, two-lane memory server for an AI assistant: it stores and retrieves project rules and personal knowledge, manages their full lifecycle, and provides read-only code-search tools.
Code lane memory: add (remember), correct (revise), remove (retract), resolve conflicting versions (resolve), pin/unpin to session start, judge usefulness (mark), and inspect status/history.
Search & retrieval: search all memory by text, scope, key, or project (lookup), fetch a single item (get), and walk an item's full history.
Library lane: list shelves, read entries, search, file new entries, correct or retire them by number (library, shelve) — kept fully separate from code rules.
Proof-based enforcement: notes can carry checkable proofs (file exists, contains/absent literals, forbidden patterns, requires) so a still-valid rule can refuse a matching write.
Project source-code tools: search indexed source (search_code), outline what a file declares (outline), and find all usages of a symbol (where_used).
Safety and honesty: nothing is ever truly deleted, weakening or retracting requires a reason, refusals explain the exact fix, and read-only commands report plain errors instead of empty successes.
Most memory tools can only remind your assistant. THOR can refuse.
Give it a note with a proof attached - a small check it can run right now, like "this file still contains that line." From then on the note stops being advice. THOR refuses the matching edit or command before it runs. Not a suggestion your assistant is free to skip. A hard stop.
That proof runs live, at the exact moment it matters, against your actual project. A note that has gone stale, that no longer describes what is really there, quietly stops counting as proof - so it can never block you by mistake.
Other local memories can refuse a write too. What is different is where the block comes from: a proof, checked live, never a rule taken on faith. And the whole loop that produces it, learning included, runs in one place: this machine.
Most notes only inform: pinned so they are handed over at the start of every session, or surfaced the first time your assistant reaches for the file or command they are about.
A note that keeps being served without ever being judged makes THOR stop the turn and ask whether it helped or got in the way. Two bad verdicts in a row retire a note from being served again, though it stays there if you go looking for it. That ask only ever names a note your own session actually saw fire - never one that only ever showed up during other, unrelated work. Answer for a note once and this session leaves it alone for good, no matter how many more times it fires before you are done.
A health check names what has rotted, out loud: proofs that now come out false, notes pointing at nothing, notes too crowded to ever be shown.
Everything that is not code - a recipe, a book, a training log - lives in its own library, kept apart, so it never competes with a deploy rule for room.
Everything stays on your machine: no account, no key, no cloud - including what it learns about which of your notes are worth keeping.
THOR is free and GPLv3. If it earns its keep, you can support the work: buy me a Ko-fi or become a YouTube member - no pressure, no paywall, everything stays open either way.
Are you an AI assistant, setting THOR up for the person you work with? Go straight to AGENTS.md. It is written for you.
Prefer watching? The video above walks through what THOR is and why it exists.
Remembers what you tell it. A rule, a gotcha, a decision, the shape of the project. Once, in your own words. It stays until you change it.
Hands it back at the right moment. Not a search box you have to remember. The note arrives while you are touching the file or running the command it is about, in a conversation that never heard it.
Stops a wrong change, not just warns about it. A note carrying something checkable can refuse the write outright. Most notes only inform, and that is deliberate: a rule that blocks honest work is the most expensive thing this system can do.
Keeps projects apart. Every project has its own memory. One repo's rules never leak into another.
Says when it has rotted. It counts its own dead ends: notes pointing at files that moved, notes nothing ever reads, notes crowded out by louder ones. Out loud, in plain language, so you can fix them.
Stays on your machine. No account, no key, no server. Nothing is sent anywhere, ever.
Related MCP server: memini
Months ago you found out the hard way that this project is pinned to an older Node, and anything newer breaks the build. You said so once, and moved on.
Today a fresh conversation opens package.json to add a dependency, sees an
engine range that looks out of date, and is one helpful edit away from bumping
it. Right then, before it types, your own sentence is in front of it.
That is the whole idea. Not a search box you remember to use. A memory that shows up on time.
Most assistants read a rules file at startup - CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md,
.cursorrules. It helps, and it runs out of road quickly.
Past a certain size it becomes a phone book, and nobody reads a phone book front to back. Your assistant skims it, takes the gist and moves on. The rule was in there. It got skipped. Nothing looks wrong afterwards, because the line is still sitting in the file, so you go on believing you are covered.
Here is the part that is genuinely different. Picture a fresh agent, no history, no idea what this project has already cost you, one keystroke away from the exact write that broke production last spring. A rules file would have mentioned it somewhere on page four. THOR stops the keystroke. The write does not happen - and what stops it is the note you wrote, the day it broke.
That is the whole promise: not better advice, but a wrong change that does not land.
Getting there is not free, and it is worth knowing before you start. A note only earns that power if it is written to earn it: tied to a real file or command, carrying something checkable that shows it still applies. THOR ships with a handful of starting notes that teach exactly that, and refuses the ones that cannot work. AGENTS.md spells out the rules of the game in full.
Three things make that work, and they all live in one file on your machine:
1. Nothing is ever lost. Every note is kept forever. Change your mind and the old version stays too, so you can always look back at what you used to think and when it changed. If two versions of a note ever conflict, THOR keeps both and tells you, rather than quietly picking one and throwing the other away. It is the same care you would give your source code, given to the things you know.
2. It arrives at the right moment. THOR checks your memory on every message you send. And the first time your assistant reaches for a file or runs a command that one of your rules is about, that rule gets put in front of it right then. Before the mistake, not after.
3. Your assistant looks after it. It is not a notebook you have to fill in by hand. Your assistant can add notes, correct them, retire ones that stopped being true, and flag which ones actually helped. A THOR that is used well is a THOR your assistant is quietly tidying as you work.
It reads your code too. Point it at a project and it takes in the source and the documentation, so "how does this bit work here" gets answered from your actual project instead of a guess.
Everything stays on your machine. No cloud, no account, no subscription, and nothing to sign up for. If some optional piece is missing, THOR quietly falls back to a simpler way of working instead of breaking.
Showing a warning at the right moment is worth a lot, and for a long time that was all THOR could do. A note could speak. It could not refuse.
Version 2 lets a note carry a proof of its own currency: a small check THOR can run right now to see whether the note is still true of your project. "This file still contains that line." "That file is still there." "This character never appears in anything we write." Or, for catching something left out rather than something wrong: "every agent I spawn names which model to do the work with."
That changes what a note is allowed to do:
A note whose proof runs and holds right now may stop a wrong change outright.
A note backed by words alone may warn, and only warn. It can inform your assistant; it can never forbid.
If the proof cannot run - the file moved, the path is gone - nothing is blocked. It is reported as needing a look.
That first kind of stop reaches further than an edit made through your assistant's own tools: deleting the protected file, emptying it out, or overwriting it from a command your assistant runs counts as the same wrong change, and is stopped the same way.
The reason for the split is uncomfortable and worth saying out loud. Notes rot. You write one, the project moves on, and the note quietly becomes wrong. A tool that let any old note block your work would spend most of its time blocking you for reasons that stopped being true months ago. So THOR only hands that power to notes that can prove, at that exact second, that they still describe your project.
Which is why, as the top of this page already said, most of your notes will never block anything. The health check prints how many can, and you should look at it. On the author's own memory, when this was first measured, 2 notes out of 2999 could prove themselves; a day of deliberate work took that to 256. It moves by hand, because deciding what proves a note is a judgement about that one note.
That the number is printed at all is the point: a safety net nothing is attached to looks exactly like a safety net that works.
Leaving that to whoever thinks of it means it never happens. So THOR asks, by itself, in two places.
When a note is written. A note you call expensive, or one that spells out a command, a flag or a filename, is not stored until one question is answered: is there a text whose presence means the mistake is happening? If there is, the note gets a proof built on exactly that text. If there is not - and often there is not, because "check with me first" has nothing to catch - you say so and the note goes in unchanged. Both are real answers. Only saying nothing is not.
For the notes you already had. Once per session, THOR picks one note that names something concrete, has never been asked, and holds the turn until it is. One at a time, forever, so a memory written before any of this existed still gets worked through instead of being declared hopeless.
A caution worth stating plainly: THOR can prove that a note is wired so a matching change would be stopped. It cannot know whether the text you typed is the text the real command uses. A misspelled fragment is wired perfectly and guards nothing. That is why the health check reports two different numbers - how many notes could refuse something, and how many ever actually did. Trust the second one.
Asking about one note at a time is a brake, not a broom: it keeps the pile
from growing while you work, not a way to clear it in one sitting. For that,
run /thor-eval at the end of a session. It walks through everything the
memory has been served without a verdict, repairs what has quietly drifted
out of date, and settles the debt in one pass instead of one note a day. A
session that never runs it simply leaves that debt for the next one to
inherit.
Version 1 remembered well and never argued. It would hand your assistant a note at the right moment and hope. Version 2 is the same memory with a spine.
A note can refuse. The headline, and the rest of this section is about it. Version 1 could only speak.
Bad notes no longer get in. A note that cannot ever fire, has nothing that would prove it wrong, runs on for a page, or simply repeats one you already have: turned away at the door, with the reason and the fix. Version 1 stored whatever it was given, and you found out months later that half of it was unreachable.
It counts what it actually did. How many notes can refuse something, how many ever have, how much of your memory nothing re-reads. Version 1 had no number for the one thing it was built to do, which is how a safety net stays broken for a year.
Maintenance is no longer optional. At the end of a turn it asks for one thing: judge a note that keeps firing, fix one you just filed where it will never be seen, answer whether an expensive note can refuse anything. One at a time, and it will not be waved off with a promise to do it later.
It costs almost nothing to carry. A note is capped at 300 characters and a block at four notes and 1200 characters, so what lands in the conversation is a few hundred tokens, not a whole rules file re-read on every turn. A memory of ten thousand notes costs the same per turn as one of fifty. Nothing calls out to a model to decide what to send - it is a local program reading a local file, so there is no network round trip in front of your keystroke. The one exception is the handful you deliberately pin: those are read out in full at the start of a conversation, so pin sparingly and the cap does the rest. Measured on the author's own machine and memory: about 110 ms per call and around 1500 characters delivered when something applies, against roughly 660 ms for version 1. One machine, one memory - treat it as an order of magnitude, not a specification.
Stale notes are hunted, not left to rot. A note whose proof comes out false is reported instead of quietly going on being wrong. A note that keeps firing without anyone ever saying whether it belonged gets asked about, and two verdicts of "this did not belong" retire it from every channel while leaving it findable. In version 1 a note that went wrong simply stayed.
Crowding is visible and refused. Only a few notes fit in a block, so notes compete. Version 2 counts that competition, tells you when you have just stored something onto a spot too crowded to ever show it, names what is holding the place, and refuses the write outright when every spot the note could take is already full of heavier ones. A note tied to one file, folder or command is refused the moment that single place already holds as many as it can ever show - lighter rivals count too, so a heavier note can no longer bump a lighter one out of sight unnoticed. Version 1 accepted it and said nothing, which is how a memory fills up with advice nobody will ever see.
The memory above is built for work. It has a gate, notes that interrupt you, and a hard cap on how much ever reaches the conversation - all of which is exactly wrong for a recipe.
So 2.1 adds a library, and it is a genuinely separate thing: its own file, its own two commands, and no way to reach the first memory at all. Nothing you put in it can ever interrupt you, compete with a note, or take up room in a block. You only ever see it because you asked.
It works the way a shelf works.
Everything lives on a shelf, and shelves do not nest. Books, recipes, a training log, what you spent. Filing something without naming a shelf is refused, and the refusal lists the shelves you have, so your assistant picks from real ones instead of inventing a name.
Only you create a shelf. If nothing fits, your assistant has to ask you what the new one should be called - and once you answer, it repeats your own word back and the shelf is created, with the entry filed onto it, in that same reply. It can never invent a name or skip the question. This is the rule that stops a tidy list of eight from becoming a sprawl of sixty.
A shelf that grows gets labels, never a split. Two hundred recipes on one shelf, filtered by "bbq" or "dessert", stays one shelf. That is what keeps the list of shelves short enough to hold in your head.
You get an index, not a wall of text. Open a shelf and you see one line per entry. Ask for one by number to read it whole.
The same thing twice is refused, pointing at the entry you already have.
Nothing is ever deleted. Your assistant can retire an entry that no longer belongs - it comes out of the listing and out of search, and stays fully readable by its own number for as long as the library exists.
A search never answers "nothing". If your words miss - and they will, since the words you ask with are rarely the words you wrote - it hands you the shelf to read instead. Asking for "ribbetjes" when you wrote "ribben" finds it.
The short way - one command. It downloads the latest release, checks the download against the checksum published next to it, unpacks it into your home folder, and runs the whole setup.
Windows, in PowerShell:
irm https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nworks3d/THOR-memory-bible-for-AI/main/install.ps1 | iexLinux:
curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/nworks3d/THOR-memory-bible-for-AI/main/install.sh | shNo administrator rights, and nothing is installed outside your own user folder. The automated setup targets Claude Code today. It touches two of its files - Claude Code's own settings and the list of tools it may use - and backs up both before it does. Rather read the script before you run it? Open that same link in a browser first. There is no macOS build yet, so on a Mac take the route below. Using a different assistant? See Using it from another assistant below.
Or build it yourself. You need a Rust toolchain. Nothing else: no key to get, no model to download first, no account.
cd thor2 && cargo build --release --features semantic
--features semanticis not optional, and leaving it off fails silently. Without it everything still builds, still runs, and still answers every word-for-word search correctly. What stops working is searching by meaning: it returns nothing at all, with no error anywhere. The reliable way to tell the two apart is size. Look atthor2/target/release/serve.exe- over 20 MB is the right build, a few MB is the wrong one. Build it again with the flag.
Then run the setup yourself. That is the same step the one-command install ends with, and in the normal case you type no paths at all:
thor2/target/release/install.exeIt finds your assistant's own two configuration files by itself, creates your memory if you do not have one yet, wires THOR into your assistant, and registers the part your assistant writes through. It also installs a shared set of git hooks that run in every repository on this machine, which keeps the reading of your code fresh after each commit, and each one hands control back to your repository's own hooks so nothing already there stops working. It backs up both files before it touches them, it never removes anything it did not put there, and running it twice changes nothing the second time.
A brand new memory does not arrive empty. It gets a handful of short notes on how to write a note that comes back to you later, and your assistant is handed them at the start of every conversation from then on. That matters more than it sounds: an assistant with nothing in front of it writes notes in a shape that never fires again, and neither of you would notice for weeks. They are ordinary notes - unpin one, rewrite it in your own words, or throw it out. An existing memory is never seeded, so upgrading never pushes anything into your own notes.
You only reach for a flag if your setup is unusual: --settings and --mcp-json
send it at other files, --db and --serve-exe override where it looks, and
--no-mcp sets up a memory your assistant can read but not write, on purpose.
If a program it needs is missing, it stops and says so rather than installing
something that would sit silent.
Then restart your assistant. The part it writes through only comes alive after a restart. Until then, it can already read the memory but not add to it.
Step 3 - check it.
thor2/target/release/doctor.exe --db "C:\Users\you\AppData\Local\thor2\thor.db"Sixteen plain-language lines, one per part: which build you are running, whether your memory is healthy, whether searching by meaning is switched on, how many of your notes can prove themselves, how many point at files that are no longer there, and how many are bound to something that can never happen. It changes nothing.
To see just the build number - useful when you are reporting a problem and
need to say exactly which version you have - run doctor as above and read its
first line, or run any of the programs in thor2/target/release/ with
--version, for example thor2/target/release/serve.exe --version.
One of those lines only speaks up when it has something to report: if it ever says your memory's own log file has outgrown the memory itself, something is stopping a save from ever finishing - close any other program that might have that same memory open, and run the check again. Newer builds also cap how big that log file is allowed to grow, so this should be rare.
Step 4 - give each project its own memory. From that project's folder:
thor2/target/release/install.exe --project "my-project"This matters more than it sounds. Skip it and THOR gets worse the more you use
it, because every search starts competing with projects you were not asking
about. All it does is write a small file called .thor-project holding that
name, so you can also just create that file yourself. It refuses to change a
name that is already there, because renaming a project's scope would strand
every note already filed under the old one.
If you are the assistant doing the setup, AGENTS.md is the walkthrough for the steps above.
The automated setup above is for Claude Code specifically. Any other assistant that can be pointed at an external tool server can still use THOR, through the container published alongside every release instead of a local build.
A generic client config, the shape most tool-calling assistants expect:
{
"mcpServers": {
"thor": {
"command": "docker",
"args": [
"run", "-i", "--rm",
"-v", "thor-data:/data",
"ghcr.io/nworks3d/thor-mcp:2.4.1"
]
}
}
}docker run -i --rm -v thor-data:/data ghcr.io/nworks3d/thor-mcp:2.4.1On an empty volume, the container creates a memory and seeds it with THOR's
own handful of starting notes before it starts answering - the same first
step the setup above takes. Point -v at a folder or named volume that
already holds a thor.db instead (a copy of the one your own build created,
say), and that one is opened untouched. -i keeps input open, which is what
talking to it over stdio needs; drop --rm if you would rather keep the
stopped container around than have it clean up after itself.
The old advice was to start a fresh chat often, because long ones got worse and you lost everything anyway. With THOR that advice is out of date. One long conversation is now the better habit.
When a conversation gets long, the assistant's tools squeeze out the older parts to make room. THOR covers that moment: your standing rules come straight back, and it nudges your assistant to write down anything important that was never saved. Starting a fresh chat is covered too - your rules and your project's background are loaded in from the start.
So stay in one conversation while you are on one piece of work. Start a fresh one on purpose - because you have moved on to something else, or because this one has talked itself into a corner - not because it is getting long.
Worth knowing before you start, because the beginning is the least impressive part and it is easy to conclude too early that nothing is happening.
Day one, it stops nothing. A fresh memory holds a handful of starting notes: how to write one that comes back, plus the honesty and agent-spawning habits that hold on any project. The part of THOR that can refuse a wrong change only works on notes that carry a proof, and you have not written any yet. So on the first day you get those notes at the start of a conversation and a nudge at the end, and no refusals at all. That is not a fault; there is simply nothing yet to refuse with.
Your first note will probably be turned down. It asks for two things most people leave out: when the note should come back to you, and what would show it had gone wrong. If the note is about something expensive, or names a command or a filename, it asks a third: is there a text whose presence means the mistake is happening? Answering "no, there is nothing to catch here" is enough, and often it is the truthful answer. The refusal names everything that is missing at once and says what to write instead, so the second attempt usually lands. It is strict on purpose - a note nobody can ever prove wrong is a note that quietly stops being true.
The value arrives once you have notes about real places. A note tied to a file, a folder or a command comes back exactly when you touch that thing. A handful of those is worth more than fifty general ones, and after a week or two of writing them down as you go, your assistant stops asking you the same questions.
Then check what you have built with doctor. It tells you plainly how much of
your memory can actually stop a wrong change, how often it has, and which parts
nothing ever re-reads.
Everything above describes a memory that starts empty. If you are coming from version 1, or from any pile of notes written before proofs existed, the shape is different and worth saying plainly, because the obvious plan does not work.
THOR asks you about one old note per session. That is a brake, not a broom. It keeps the pile from growing while you work, and it was never meant to clear one: at one a day, a backlog of thousands outlives you.
The broom is the health check, pointed at the folder your projects actually live in:
doctor --db <your thor.db> --checkouts <the folder holding your projects> --fullThat names every note whose anchor points at nothing, every proof that now comes out false, and every note stored somewhere too crowded to ever be shown. Set aside an afternoon rather than a coffee, and go through it in one sitting. The list is long because the memory is old, not because anything is broken.
Two things make that afternoon safe to be decisive in. Correcting a note keeps the old version, so nothing you wrote is lost and you can always read back what it used to say. And removing one does not delete it either: it stops being handed to anyone, stays findable, and the reason you gave stays attached to it.
Use it for a week and see whether your assistant stops asking you the same things. That is the only test that answers the question you actually have.
THOR was measured head to head against another memory tool for months, and those numbers are not here any more. Not because they were bad - they were good - but because a score measured on someone else's notes tells you about them, not about you. The tool is here. The verdict is yours.
What your assistant actually calls, grouped the same way the memory itself is split in two.
Code lane - projects, rules, how to work:
remember - store a new rule, note, report or lookup entry
revise - correct one that already exists, instead of a near-duplicate;
taking teeth away from a rule that can already stop a mistake - dropping
its check, lowering its severity, or narrowing where it applies - needs a
reason too, kept in its history
retract - remove one that turned out wrong (a reason is required; nothing
is deleted)
resolve - settle two versions of the same fact that diverged apart
pin - make an existing note a standing rule, served at every session start
unpin - stop it being one
get - show one item whole, by id
lookup - search everything - every project, by scope, by key, or by free
text
history - walk one item's whole past, oldest first
mark - judge whether something you were served actually helped
status - how much of the memory can actually stop a mistake, and how much
has gone stale
search_code - search the project's own indexed source code
where_used - find every place one function, struct or variable is defined
and used
outline - see everything one file declares, in line order
Library lane - recipes, books, training, expenses, kept apart from the code lane:
library - read a shelf's index, one entry, or search across shelves
shelve - file a new entry, correct one that already exists, or retire one
page | what it answers |
for your AI assistant: how to set THOR up | |
the version 2 program: how it is built and what each part does | |
the standard version 2 is judged against, and the test enforcing each rule | |
how a note proves itself, in detail | |
changing THOR: the bar for a pull request | |
what changed in each release: the section every release opens with |
MakerViking - for the inspiration and the great fight. This project would not exist without the spark, and it would not be half as good without someone worth pushing against. Skål!
mimir (MakerViking/mimir) - the reason THOR exists at all. In the old Norse stories, Mimir guards the well of knowledge; here it set the bar THOR had to clear, and for a long stretch it cleared plenty of its own. Every early comparison in this project was against mimir, wins and losses both published on purpose, because a rival that good deserves honest numbers.
Ideas borrowed, both ways. Two things THOR does came from mimir's own work and were rebuilt here in THOR's own way, and mimir in turn credits THOR for reading code into memory and for checking memory on every message - exactly the kind of exchange open source is for. Thanks, MakerViking.
THOR is built by N-Works 3D. If it has earned its keep - saved you an explanation, caught a mistake before it cost you, or just meant you did not have to start from scratch - there are two easy ways to help keep it going:
Buy me a Ko-fi - a one-off, whenever you feel like it.
Become a YouTube member - monthly, if you want to keep it going.
No pressure and no paywall - it all stays open either way. Skål, and thanks for reading this far.
Bug reports and pull requests welcome. THOR is a memory your assistant is supposed to trust, so the bar is being right rather than having more features. The checklist is in CONTRIBUTING.md.
GPLv3.
Code lane: shows one item whole, by id. Use lookup instead when the id is not already known. Read-only. Reports a plain, honest error - never a blank reply that could look like success - when the id is unknown, when the item is DIVERGED (more than one current head; read history, then use resolve), or when its stored body will not parse. Replies with the item as formatted JSON, or the error text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id to show. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses specific error behavior: it never returns a blank reply that could look like success, and it lists the three error-triggering conditions (unknown id, DIVERGED item, unparseable stored body). It also states the successful response shape: the item as formatted JSON or error text. This is valuable context not present in annotations.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently covers routing, safety, error behavior, and response format. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the slightly extended error explanation earns its place by preventing an agent from mistaking a failure for success.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers what is needed: selection criteria, error conditions, and return format. With annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, there are no significant gaps for an agent to call this correctly.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the single parameter with 'The id to show,' and the description reinforces that the id is used for lookup and can be unknown. Since schema coverage is complete, the description adds minimal extra meaning but does not need to compensate.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and object: 'shows one item whole, by id,' which clearly distinguishes it from broader operations. It also explicitly names the sibling alternative (lookup) and explains the differentiator, so an agent can identify this tool without inspecting the schema.
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?
The description gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use lookup instead when the id is not already known.' It also instructs the agent to read history and use resolve when the item is DIVERGED, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use information directly actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: walks one item's whole life by id, oldest first - every declare, revise and retraction, each with its sequence number, revision hash and author. Use get instead for only the current version. Read-only; nothing is ever deleted from the log, so this still answers for a retracted item - read it before you revise or retract again. Replies with one line per revision, or the plain 'no history for id X' for an unknown id (not an error).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id whose whole life to walk. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond them: nothing is ever deleted from the log, it still answers for retracted items, output is one line per revision ordered oldest-first, and an unknown id returns plain text 'no history for id X' rather than an error. The non-error response for unknown ids is exactly the kind of edge-case behavior an agent needs to know. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Four dense sentences and every one earns its place: core function, sibling routing, persistence/read-only caveat, and output format. Slightly cryptic 'Code lane:' prefix and slightly metaphorical 'walks one item's whole life' phrasing cost a point, but nothing is redundant.
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 single-required-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates: it describes the reply format, ordering, content, unknown-id behavior, and mutation-safety context. There is no meaningful gap an agent would need to resolve elsewhere.
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 coverage is 100% — the id parameter already has a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what happens with an unknown id (a plain string reply, not an error), which affects how the agent interp rets the response for that parameter.
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 + resource: 'walks one item's whole life by id, oldest first' with concrete content (every declare, revise, retraction; sequence number, revision hash, author). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get' by explicitly saying get returns only the current version, so an agent can tell them apart instantly.
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?
Gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use get instead for only the current version' names the alternative and the condition selecting it. It also provides a concrete use case — 'read it before you revise or retract again' — telling the agent when to call this tool in a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Library lane: reads the owner's everyday knowledge - recipes, books, a training log, expenses - kept apart from the code lane; nothing here is ever injected, ranked against a rule, or counted toward any cap. Use shelve to write instead. No arguments lists the shelves and how much each holds; shelf lists that shelf's live entries (label narrows it); id returns one entry whole, retired or not, marked '(retired)' if so; query searches live entries, optionally within one shelf. Read-only. A search never answers 'nothing' - it hands back the shelf, or the shelf list, to read instead, since the words asked with are rarely the words written. Replies with the requested listing or entry, or that fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | One entry's number, as the listings show it. Returns it whole. | |
| label | No | Narrow one shelf to the entries carrying this label. Labels are how a big shelf stays usable - there are never sub-shelves. | |
| query | No | Free text. Searched over titles, bodies and labels, in four steps that end in a list to read rather than in an empty answer. | |
| shelf | No | One shelf, by name. On its own it lists that shelf, one line per entry. With `query` it searches inside that shelf only. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, but the description adds valuable non-obvious behaviors: searches never return 'nothing' but fall back to a shelf or shelf list, retired entries are marked, and nothing in the library is injected, ranked, or capped. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is dense and front-loaded, opening with purpose and routing before detailing modes. It is long, but every sentence earns its place for a multi-mode tool with no output schema to fall back on.
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?
The description covers all four parameter modes, read-only behavior, the write alternative, the fallback search behavior, and the expected reply shape. Despite having no output schema, an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly in every mode.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds mode-level semantics beyond individual property docs: no arguments lists shelves, shelf plus label narrows live entries, id returns one whole entry, and query can be scoped to one shelf. This connects the parameters to invocation patterns the schema alone does not spell out.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb-resource pairing ('reads the owner's everyday knowledge') and clearly separates the library lane from the code lane. It names shelve as the write counterpart and enumerates the distinct read modes (no args, shelf, id, query), so an agent can tell this tool apart from siblings without opening the schema.
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?
'Use shelve to write instead' is an explicit when-not-to-use instruction with a named alternative, and the 'kept apart from the code lane' plus 'never injected, ranked against a rule, or counted toward any cap' gives clear context for when library is the right read tool. This is strong routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: searches THOR's memory - every project, archive kinds (Report, Chunk) included - never scoped to only the current project. Call this before remember, so an existing near-duplicate becomes a revise instead. No arguments returns the catalogue of scopes; scope alone lists everything filed there; scope with query narrows a search to it; query alone searches everywhere; key answers only a Lookup item's own exact key (query and scope are then ignored). Read-only, and never an injection surface - nothing here reaches you unprompted. Replies with up to 25 matching lines (id, kind, text) and how many more exist, the catalogue, or a plain 'no matches'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | An exact Lookup key. When given, this is the ONLY parameter used - `query` and `scope` are ignored - and only a real Lookup item can ever answer it. | |
| query | No | Free-text search over every live item's text and tags, any project, archive kinds (Report/Chunk) included - never a Lookup item (those answer only to their own `key`, see below). | |
| scope | No | One scope, by name, as the catalogue lists it. On its own it opens that scope: every item filed under it, one line each, complete. Together with `query` it narrows that search to this scope alone. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is 'never an injection surface - nothing here reaches you unprompted', caps replies at 25 lines, reports how many more matches exist, and clarifies the exact response shapes (lines, catalogue, or 'no matches').
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?
Dense but efficient: every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, workflow, invocation modes, safety, and return behavior. It is front-loaded with the core distinction and the remember/revise guidance before the mechanical details.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies return values and limits. It covers all four parameter combinations, the read-only safety profile, and the relationship to remember/revise in the sibling toolset. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.
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?
The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining cross-parameter behavior the schema does not fully convey: key ignores query and scope, scope alone opens a scope, query alone searches everywhere, and no arguments returns the catalogue of scopes.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'searches THOR's memory', and immediately distinguishes its scope from any current-project-limited alternative: 'never scoped to only the current project.' It also names sibling tools like remember and revise, making it clear which tool this is not.
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?
Explicitly prescribes when to call it: 'Call this before remember, so an existing near-duplicate becomes a revise instead.' It also enumerates all invocation modes (no args, scope, query, key), which is effectively a usage decision table.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: judges an item you were served or looked up. Default records that it HELPED, which clears noise recorded before it (a later noise mark still counts - the newest verdict wins). Pass noise:true for the opposite; two noise marks since the last useful one retire the item from the injection surfaces, though it stays fully findable via lookup. A second call THIS SESSION for the same id with the same verdict writes nothing and says so; a different verdict is written and the earlier one is named in the reply. On a replica this queues instead of writing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error). Refused when the item is not live (retracted or archived) - there is nothing to judge. Also refused, with nothing written, when the item is pinned (Always-bound): the owner already answered by pinning it, so a verdict changes nothing - unpin it first if it should be judged instead. Replies with the verdict recorded, or the refusal text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the item being judged. | |
| noise | No | Set true to record the OPPOSITE: this item did not belong where it fired. Two noise judgements, with no mark of usefulness, retire it from the injection surfaces; it stays fully findable via lookup. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false) and the description carries the real burden well: it discloses idempotency behavior ('a second call THIS SESSION... writes nothing'), overwrite semantics ('the newest verdict wins'), replica queuing ('queued for the main machine is not an error'), and two refusal paths. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries information, but the prose is dense with nested parentheticals that slow parsing. It earns its length given the behavioral complexity, though it could be tightened.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating what the reply contains ('the verdict recorded, or the refusal text'). Combined with the exhaustive refusal and idempotency rules, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: the effect of noise:true is tied to a retirement threshold ('two noise marks since the last useful one retire the item'), and the default is restated as clearing prior noise. This contextualizes the parameter rather than merely repeating it.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'judges an item you were served or looked up,' and clearly marks this as the verdict-recording tool. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pin, lookup, and retract (e.g., 'stays fully findable via lookup', 'unpin it first'). The jargon ('code lane', 'injection surfaces') adds some opacity, but an agent can still tell what it does and how it differs.
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?
Explicit when/when-not guidance: use it to judge a served/looked-up item, default records HELPED, pass noise:true for the opposite. It names refusal conditions (item not live, item pinned) and the alternative action ('unpin it first if it should be judged instead'). Nothing material is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: lists what one file declares, in line order - its shape without reading the whole thing. Use where_used instead to find every caller of one symbol. Takes a repository-relative path. Read-only. States plainly when the index has never seen that path, which differs from 'this file defines nothing' - a file added since the last index build falls in the first case. Replies with one line per definition (name and line number), or the plain 'not indexed' or 'defines nothing' text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Repository-relative path, exactly as the index stores it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses important behavioral nuances: the difference between 'not indexed' and 'defines nothing,' including the scenario of a file added since the last index build. It also describes the reply format in detail (one line per definition with name and line number), which is not captured by any structured field.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: purpose, alternative tool, path requirement, read-only mention, output format, and edge-case behavior. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains free of filler, despite the slight stylistic oddity of 'Code lane:'.
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?
With a single parameter, no output schema, and thorough annotations, this description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, how to invoke it, what the response looks like, and a critical edge case (not-indexed vs defines-nothing). The mention of the sibling tool where_used further completes the contextual picture.
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 100%, and the only parameter (path) is documented as 'Repository-relative path, exactly as the index stores it.' The description repeats 'repository-relative path' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already carries the full parameter documentation, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'lists what one file declares, in line order' and 'its shape without reading the whole thing.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool where_used by naming which tool to use for an alternative goal. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description explicitly provides a routing condition: 'Use where_used instead to find every caller of one symbol.' It also clarifies the intended context of 'one file' and the repository-relative path requirement, making it clear when this tool is appropriate and when a sibling is better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: adds the Always binding to an existing item, so it is served in full at every session start; every other binding and field stays untouched. A pinned item owes no verdict from that point on - mark refuses it and points back here to unpin. Use revise instead when anything besides the binding needs to change. Idempotent - pinning an already-pinned item changes nothing and is not an error. On a replica this queues instead of writing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error). Refused, loudly, when the item's kind may carry no binding at all (a Report or Chunk). Replies 'pinned' with the event sequence, 'already pinned', or the refusal text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id to pin (add the Always binding to it). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds behavior annotations cannot express: replica writes queue instead of failing, refusals are loud for binding-incapable kinds, and pinned items are exempt from mark's verdict. Return values are also disclosed.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action and effect scope, then conditions and return values. Every sentence carries a distinct fact, though the clause density with dashes and parentheticals is heavier than a one-parameter tool strictly needs.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the three possible responses ('pinned' with event sequence, 'already pinned', or refusal text) and covers the replica/queue and kind-refusal edge cases. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real constraint semantics beyond 'The id to pin': the id must reference an existing item, and ids whose kind cannot bear a binding are refused. That is meaningful eligibility information the schema does not carry.
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 concrete verb+resource: 'adds the Always binding to an existing item', and immediately scopes the effect ('every other binding and field stays untouched'). It differentiates from siblings by naming mark (which refuses pinned items), unpin (the inverse), and revise (the alternative for non-binding changes).
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'Use revise instead when anything besides the binding needs to change', plus the exact refusal condition (kinds that may carry no binding, e.g. Report or Chunk). It also routes the agent to unpin as the undo path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: declares a NEW item (Rule, Orientation, Report, Lookup or Chunk) through the write gate. Call lookup first so this corrects an existing item instead of storing a near-duplicate; for anything about the owner's own life use shelve, never this. On a replica this queues instead of writing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error). Refuses, with the exact reason and the fix, when a Rule/Orientation has no binding, no falsifier, or exceeds 300 characters, or when a Report/Chunk names no project scope; nothing is written on a refusal. check_kind/check_path/check_literal(s) optionally attach a machine-runnable proof alongside the falsifier - see server instructions for the six check kinds. Replies with the stored id, kind and event sequence, or the refusal text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Caller-chosen id, kept forever. Pick something short, stable and grep-able (e.g. "no-force-push-main"), not a sentence. | |
| key | No | Required for a Lookup: the exact key a future `lookup` call names to get this item back. Meaningless for the other four kinds. | |
| kind | Yes | One of: rule, orientation, report, lookup, chunk. | |
| tags | No | ||
| text | Yes | The fact itself. A Rule/Orientation is refused past 300 characters - move reasoning into a Report instead of lengthening this. | |
| always | No | Bind this item to the pinned Always layer (served in full at every session start). Only a Rule/Orientation may set this. | |
| expires | No | ISO-8601 date. Only a Report may carry this - a Rule, Orientation, Lookup or Chunk with an expiry is refused (they last until revised). | |
| moments | No | Action names this item fires on (repeatable), e.g. ["push"]. Only a Rule/Orientation may bind to a moment. The ones that actually fire are derived from a real command or file path (publish, commit, push, deploy and the rest - see intent::from_command/from_path), plus remember itself. answer and claim_done are refused on a NEW binding: nothing produces either yet, so a rule bound only to one would store cleanly and never fire. | |
| project | No | Project this item belongs to. Omit for a global, cross-project item. | |
| targets | No | Exact targets this item fires on (repeatable). Only a Rule/Orientation may bind to a target; the value must be the real path/command/etc, never a glob and never a bare role name. | |
| severity | No | One of: irreversible, costly, house_style. Meaningless (and refused as a binding target would be) on a Report/Lookup/Chunk. | |
| falsifier | No | What observation would prove this fact wrong, one sentence. Required for a Rule or Orientation - they never expire, so this is the only thing that ever names when one has gone stale. | |
| check_kind | No | One of: path_exists, contains, absent, absent_all, forbidden, requires. An optional machine-runnable check, alongside (never instead of) falsifier - only a Rule/Orientation may carry one, and only while it currently HOLDS can it block a write. Every kind except forbidden needs check_path; path_exists refuses check_literal/check_literals; contains/absent/requires need one of them; absent_all/forbidden need check_literals. requires catches something FORGOTTEN rather than written - see server instructions. Omit all four check_* fields for no check at all. | |
| check_path | No | The exact file this check inspects, relative to the checker's root - or, for contains/absent/absent_all only, a DIRECTORY: every regular file directly inside it, never one in a subdirectory. Use the directory form when one fact spans more than one file there (e.g. a setting duplicated across two config files). Required with every check_kind except forbidden, which carries no path at all and is refused if one is given. | |
| check_literal | No | The exact literal a "contains" or "absent" check_kind looks for. Refused together with "path_exists", or together with check_literals; required with "contains"/"absent". | |
| check_literals | No | A SET of literals to forbid together, for check_kind absent_all (in one file) or forbidden (everywhere, no file). One rule forbidding several things at once (e.g. every banned punctuation character) is ONE item with a set here, never several near-identical items each forbidding one literal. Each literal is its own array entry, never joined into one delimited string. Refused together with check_literal, refused empty, and refused with any other check_kind. | |
| new_collection_named_by_owner | No | THE OWNER JUST NAMED A NEW COLLECTION - repeat that name here exactly as he gave it, and it will be opened. The only way an unopened collection can be written to: nothing existing fit, you showed him the refusal (it lists both lanes), you asked, and he answered with a name. Never fill this in on your own judgement or to get past a refusal. Must match the project (or key) on this same call, or the write is refused anyway. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses replica queueing, refusal conditions with exact reason and fix, that nothing is written on refusal, optional check attachment, and the reply format. The annotations state readOnlyHint=false, consistent with a write operation, and there is no contradiction.
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?
Four dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage routing, replica/refusal behavior, and optional checks plus reply format. The action is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.
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 complex 17-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what counts as new, when to use alternatives, what happens on a replica, refusal conditions, optional check fields, and what the response contains. The schema handles the parameter details, so nothing critical is missing.
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 94%, so the schema already documents the 17 parameters thoroughly. The description adds a useful but general note about check_kind/check_path/check_literal(s) and the six check kinds, yet it does not substantially deepen parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: "declares a NEW item (Rule, Orientation, Report, Lookup or Chunk) through the write gate." It also distinguishes itself from siblings by saying to call lookup first for existing items and to use shelve for the owner's own life. The title "Remember a fact" reinforces, but the description carries the real clarity.
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?
Explicit guidance is given: "Call lookup first so this corrects an existing item instead of storing a near-duplicate" and "for anything about the owner's own life use shelve, never this." It also pre-empts a common misunderstanding by noting that a queued response on a replica is not an error. This is unusually clear routing relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: settles an item with more than one current head - what get reports as DIVERGED, from two machines revising the same fact apart. Read history first; never guess which head is real. Name the surviving revision hash in keep and every other current head in discard - leaving one out fails rather than silently discarding it. On a replica this queues instead of writing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error). The head set is rechecked under the write lock, so a head that appears mid-decision fails the call loudly instead of being dropped. Replies 'resolved onto ', or the refusal text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The diverged id. | |
| keep | Yes | The revision hash that survives. | |
| discard | Yes | Every other current head, in full. Leaving one out fails rather than silently discarding it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: omitting a current head causes failure, replica calls queue instead of writing, the head set is rechecked under the write lock, and the call rejects heads appearing mid-decision. It also states the reply string, which is essential because there is no output schema.
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?
The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, precondition, required parameter semantics, replica behavior, race-condition handling, and output format. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.
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 destructive, multi-condition resolution tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use it, how to select keep/discard, what happens on a replica, how races are handled, and what the reply or refusal looks like. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the keep/discard semantics and the all-or-nothing discard requirement, but it mostly restates what the schema already says rather than adding new parameter meaning.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: settling an item with more than one current head, i.e., what get reports as DIVERGED. It names the specific verb, resource, and trigger condition, and distinguishes this from normal revision tools by tying it to the divergence state.
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?
It explicitly says when to use this tool (when get reports DIVERGED) and gives preconditions like reading history first and never guessing which head is real. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with revise or retract.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: removes an item that is simply WRONG or no longer applies - it stops being live everywhere (session start, the moment of action, lookup), but nothing is deleted, and history still walks it. Use revise instead when the item merely changed. A reason is required; a blank one is refused. On a replica this queues instead of writing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error). Bringing the fact back later is a fresh remember, never a revise of the tombstone. Replies 'retracted ()', or the refusal text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id to retract. | |
| reason | Yes | Why it is wrong or no longer applies. Required, and a blank one is refused: without it nobody can later tell a decision from an accident. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Side effects are disclosed: the item stops being live everywhere but is not deleted, history remains. Return values are described ('retracted <id> (<reason>)' or refusal text), and special cases like blank reasons and replica queueing are mentioned, ensuring the agent understands observable behavior.
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?
The description is detailed but every sentence contributes unique information—purpose, distinction from revise, reason requirement, replica behavior, return format, and future implications. No redundancy or filler, and the structure flows logically.
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?
Given the complexity of a soft-delete operation with replica considerations, the description covers all necessary context: what happens to the item, what the response looks like, how it differs from related tools, and edge cases. No gaps remain for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
Parameter meanings are fully covered by the schema descriptions for both id and reason. The tool description further clarifies that a reason is required and a blank one is refused, supplementing the schema and eliminating ambiguity.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it removes an item that is wrong or no longer applies, making it non-live everywhere while preserving history. The distinction from revise is explicit, leaving no ambiguity about what retract does.
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?
The description provides direct usage guidance: use revise instead when the item merely changed, and use remember (fresh) rather than revise to bring a fact back later. It also explains behavior on replicas, making when and how to use the tool clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: corrects an EXISTING item by id through the same write gate as remember; a field left unmentioned keeps its current value, and none may silently vanish - clear one with clear_severity/clear_project/clear_expires/clear_key/clear_falsifier/clear_check; an empty string on the field is the harness-only equivalent, and a flag plus a real value for that field is refused. Weakening a checked rule (its check, severity, a binding, or scope) needs because: one sentence, kept in history. On a replica this queues instead of writing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error). Prefer this over remember for an existing item that merely changed; retract, with its own reason, is for one that is simply wrong. Refuses, with the exact reason, on remember's grounds, plus a dropped field or an unexplained weakening. Replies with the revised id and event sequence, or the refusal text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the existing item to correct. | |
| key | No | Omit to keep the current key; pass "" to clear it (see `clear_key` below for the spelling that reaches this server from an assistant). | |
| tags | No | Replaces the whole tag list. Omit to keep the current tags; pass an empty list to clear them on purpose - the same omit-keeps/empty-clears convention as severity/project/expires/key/falsifier, spelled with a list: omitted means unmentioned, an empty array means deliberately cleared, a real list replaces the whole set. | |
| text | No | New text, replacing the whole body. Omit to keep the current text unchanged. For a SMALL correction to a long item, prefer `append` or `replace_from`/`replace_to` below - retyping a 290-character rule to fix one word is friction on exactly the maintenance this memory needs most, and it is the reason corrections get skipped. | |
| always | No | Replaces whether this item is bound Always - see `moments`' own note. | |
| append | No | Add this to the END of the current text, with one space between. Refused together with `text` (say what the body is, or say what to add to it, never both). The result still goes through the whole gate, so a 300-character limit is enforced on what comes out, not on what you typed. | |
| because | No | Required when this revise WEAKENS a Rule/Orientation that carries a check: clearing or changing the check, lowering or clearing severity, removing a binding (target, moment or Always), or narrowing scope from global to one project. Say in one sentence why - it is written into this item's own history (see `history`), the same way retract's reason is, so the owner can read later why a rule that could refuse a write lost its teeth. Blank or missing on one of those five is refused outright. Accepted and stored on any other revise too, but never required for one. | |
| expires | No | Omit to keep the current expiry; pass "" to clear it (see `clear_expires` below for the spelling that reaches this server from an assistant). | |
| moments | No | Replaces the moment bindings. Give this, `targets`, and/or `always` TOGETHER to replace the WHOLE binding list in one call - when none of the three are given, the existing bindings are kept untouched. See RememberArgs' own note on which moments actually fire - a NEW answer/ claim_done binding is refused here too, though one the item already carried stays correctable. | |
| project | No | Omit to keep the current project; pass "" to make it global (see `clear_project` below for the spelling that reaches this server from an assistant). | |
| targets | No | Replaces the target bindings - see `moments`' own note on how the three binding fields combine. | |
| severity | No | One of: irreversible, costly, house_style. Omit to keep the current value; pass "" to clear it (see `clear_severity` below for the spelling of a clear that actually reaches this server from an assistant). | |
| clear_key | No | Set true to clear key - same fix and convention as `clear_severity` above. Refused, naming the conflict, if `key` is also given here as a real, non-empty value. | |
| falsifier | No | Omit to keep the current falsifier; pass "" to clear it (a Rule or Orientation left with none is refused, same as at creation - see `clear_falsifier` below for the spelling that reaches this server from an assistant). | |
| check_kind | No | One of: path_exists, contains, absent, absent_all, forbidden, requires. Omit all four check_* fields to keep the current check untouched; pass check_kind as "" to clear it (refused if check_path/check_literal/check_literals is also given) - see `clear_check` below for the spelling that reaches this server from an assistant. Give check_kind plus whichever of check_path/check_literal/check_literals the kind takes, together, to replace the check wholesale - see RememberArgs' own check_kind note for what each kind needs and which to prefer. | |
| check_path | No | See check_kind's own note on the omit/clear/replace convention, and RememberArgs' own note on check_path for the directory shape contains/absent/absent_all also accept (every regular file DIRECTLY inside it, never a subdirectory). Refused outright if check_kind is "forbidden" - that kind carries no path at all. | |
| replace_to | No | What `replace_from` becomes. Pass an empty string to delete the substring. | |
| clear_check | No | Set true to clear the check - the same clear `check_kind: ""` above documents, same fix and convention as `clear_severity`'s own doc comment (see there for the defect and the evidence). Refused, naming the conflict, together with a non-empty check_kind, or with check_path/check_literal/check_literals - clearing takes none of the four; give a real check_kind (plus whatever it needs) to replace the check instead. | |
| replace_from | No | Replace the FIRST occurrence of this substring in the current text with `replace_to`. Refused unless `replace_to` is given too, refused together with `text`, and refused when the substring is not actually in the current text - a silent no-op would report success while changing nothing. | |
| check_literal | No | See check_kind's own note on the omit/clear/replace convention. | |
| clear_expires | No | Set true to clear expires - same fix and convention as `clear_severity` above. Refused, naming the conflict, if `expires` is also given here as a real, non-empty value. | |
| clear_project | No | Set true to clear project (make it global) - same fix and convention as `clear_severity` above. Refused, naming the conflict, if `project` is also given here as a real, non-empty value. | |
| check_literals | No | The set form of check_literal, for check_kind absent_all or forbidden - see RememberArgs' own note on why this is a repeatable field rather than a delimited string. Same omit/clear/replace convention as check_kind: an empty list here reads the same as omitting it, since a list has no separate way to say 'given, but deliberately empty'. | |
| clear_severity | No | Set true to clear severity - the same clear `severity: ""` above documents, run through the identical code path, never a second mechanism. THE DEFECT THIS FIXES, bitten twice (2026-09-09 and 2026-09-11): an assistant's tool-call layer drops an empty-string argument before it ever reaches this server (the field arrives as though it was never mentioned, or the call itself is rejected before that), and a literal '""' arrives as two quote characters, not an empty value - so the one documented way to clear a field was never actually reachable from an assistant. Both sessions gave up, retracted the rule and stored a fresh one with no check, silently losing its history. This flag is the one that works from an assistant; the empty string above still works for a caller that can send one (the JSON-RPC harness). Refused, naming the conflict, if `severity` is ALSO given here as a real, non-empty value - say one or the other, never both. | |
| clear_falsifier | No | Set true to clear falsifier - same fix and convention as `clear_severity` above (still refused outright on a Rule/Orientation, same as `falsifier: ""` above, by the same ground that guards creation). Refused, naming the conflict, if `falsifier` is also given here as a real, non-empty value. | |
| new_collection_named_by_owner | No | THE OWNER JUST NAMED A NEW COLLECTION - repeat that name here, exactly as he gave it. Same field, same rule and same one flow as on remember: only after nothing fitted, you showed him the refusal and he answered with a name. It must match the project (or key) this call files the item under. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is largely covered. The description does add real value beyond annotations: omit-keeps semantics, the harness-only empty-string defect, replica queueing, and the 'refuses with the exact reason' contract. However, it does not restate non-idempotency or explore reversibility/history-retention limits beyond the `because` note.
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?
Effectively one dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core action and routing before the edge cases. Every sentence carries a rule, but the punctuation-heavy packing makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.
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 26-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contract ('revised id and event sequence, or the refusal text'), the refusal grounds, and the write-gate behavior. Nothing an agent needs 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description elevates it by explaining the cross-cutting omit-keeps/empty-clears convention, the flag-plus-real-value refusal, and the check_* omit/clear/replace protocol at the call level rather than per-field. It does not enumerate every one of the 26 fields, but the conventions it states apply to all of them.
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 and resource ('corrects an EXISTING item by id'), and explicitly positions itself against siblings remember ('prefer this... for an existing item that merely changed') and retract ('for one that is simply wrong'). An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use routing against two named alternatives (remember, retract) and states the deciding condition for each. Also discloses the prerequisite that weakening a checked rule requires a `because` sentence, and that replica calls queue rather than write.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: searches the indexed SOURCE CODE of the current project, not the memory - a case-insensitive substring search. Use lookup instead for facts stored in memory, or where_used for one symbol's callers. Read-only. Every answer names the commit the text was read at and whether the working copy has since moved on - open the real file before trusting a line number. States plainly when no code index is configured, rather than returning an empty result. Replies with up to 10 matching snippets as path:start-end plus text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Most hits to return. Defaults to 10. | |
| query | Yes | Case-insensitive substring to find in the indexed source. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds significant extra context: every result names the commit read, warns that the working copy may have moved on, advises opening the file before trusting line numbers, and states it reports a missing config instead of returning an empty result. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence contributes a distinct fact. The only minor redundancy is 'Read-only', which repeats the readOnlyHint annotation, and the 'Code lane' opener adds little; otherwise it is tightly structured.
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?
With only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: return value shape, staleness caveats, missing-index behavior, and result limits. Nothing important is left out.
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?
The schema already describes both parameters fully, including defaults and case-insensitivity, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the result format and the 'up to 10' cap, but it mostly echoes what the schema already provides rather than adding new parameter-level meaning.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'searches the indexed SOURCE CODE of the current project'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from memory lookups and names the sibling tools lookup and where_used, so an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from its alternatives.
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?
It gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use lookup instead for facts stored in memory, or where_used for one symbol's callers.' This clearly states when to choose this tool versus its siblings and leaves no ambiguity about the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Library lane: files one new entry on an existing shelf, or corrects or retires one by id - never the code lane. Use remember instead for code or how to work, never the owner's own life. On a replica this queues instead of writing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error). Refused, naming the shelves that exist, when none fits, unless new_shelf_named_by_owner repeats the owner's new name - then it is created (refused at the ceiling) and the entry filed on it in one call. Refused on a near-duplicate already there, pointing at it; refused past roughly 600 characters unless one_thing_because names the single thing the entry is. retire (id alone) removes it from the listing and search; library still shows it by number, refused without id, with a title/body/label change, or without retire_because. Replies 'filed ', 'revised ' or 'retired ', or the refusal text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | CORRECT AN ENTRY THAT ALREADY EXISTS instead of filing a new one: its number, as the shelf listing shows it. The fields given replace what is there; the number stays, and the version replaced stays readable. Use this whenever a filed entry turns out wrong, badly worded or missing a label - a second entry saying the same thing better makes a shelf unreadable. Omit it to file something new. Required together with `retire`. | |
| body | No | The rest, at any length. Optional. See `title`'s own note on `retire`. | |
| shelf | Yes | An EXISTING shelf, or the one just named in `new_shelf_named_by_owner` on this same call. | |
| title | No | One line that stands on its own. This is the index. When correcting an entry (see `id`), leave it empty to keep the title it has. Leave it empty on a `retire` too - retire is refused together with a title, body or label change. | |
| labels | No | Optional labels for filtering inside a shelf. See `title`'s own note on `retire`. | |
| retire | No | Take this entry out of the shelf listing and out of search, without deleting it - `library` still returns it whole, marked retired, when asked for by its number. Works only together with `id`, and only alone: refused together with a title, body or label change (one thing per call), and refused without `id`. Requires `retire_because`. | |
| retire_because | No | Required together with `retire: true`: why this entry no longer belongs on the shelf, in a real sentence - the same requirement `retract` makes on the code lane, and for the same reason: without it nobody can tell a decision from an accident later. Ignored when retire is not set. | |
| one_thing_because | No | WHY THIS LONG BODY IS STILL ONE THING - required past the length where an entry is usually several things glued together, ignored below it. Name the single thing it is (e.g. "one pizza dough recipe") in a real sentence. Cannot name it in one? Then it is more than one thing - file separate entries on the same shelf with labels instead. Filler here does not get a pile past the question. | |
| new_shelf_named_by_owner | No | THE OWNER JUST NAMED A NEW SHELF - repeat that name here exactly as he gave it, and it is created (the shelf ceiling still applies) and this entry filed onto it in the same call. THE GAP THIS CLOSES: creating a shelf used to live only behind the `library` command-line binary's own `shelf-new` - an agent that asked and was answered still had no way to act on the answer, which was a dead end at a new user's very first recipe. Never fill this in on your own judgement or to get past a refusal - only after the owner himself named it. Must match `shelf` on this same call, or the write is refused. Meaningless together with `id`: correcting or retiring an entry never creates a shelf. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior: replica queuing (not an error), retirement semantics (removed from listing/search but still visible by number), refusal reasons, and exact reply strings. This goes far beyond the annotations and enriches the agent's understanding.
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?
The description is long but each sentence adds value, covering the three operation modes, refusal conditions, replica behavior, and reply formats. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, though the dense run-on style could be broken into clearer sentences. It earns its length despite being verbose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple modes, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it specifies output reply strings, all refusal conditions, the replica queue caveat, and the interaction between parameters (e.g., retire requires id and retire_because). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
The schema already documents all 9 parameters with 100% coverage, including detailed descriptions for each (e.g., id, title, retire, one_thing_because). The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does reference some parameters in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.
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?
The description states a precise verb ('shelve') and resource ('a library entry') and clearly distinguishes itself from the code lane ('never the code lane') and from the sibling 'remember' for code or personal life. It covers the three modes (file new, correct, retire) without ambiguity.
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?
It explicitly directs when to use 'remember' instead for code or how-to-work, and describes refusal conditions (no matching shelf, near-duplicate, length limit) and the special case of creating a new shelf when the owner names it. This leaves no doubt about when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: reports what the memory holds right now - live item counts per kind, how many Rule/Orientation items exist, how many were declared but have never once fired, how many were served repeatedly without ever being marked useful, and how many carry no falsifier. Use get or history instead for one specific item. Read-only, takes no arguments. Replies with a 'THOR ' line first, so a pasted reply always names the build, then one count per line.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states 'Read-only, takes no arguments,' which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It also describes the output format (version line followed by counts per line), providing transparency about the tool's behavior without contradicting the annotations.
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?
The description is somewhat verbose but not excessive. It lists several specific counts, which adds useful detail but could be condensed. The structure is logical: purpose, distinction from siblings, then behavior. It earns a 4 for being informative without being overly wordy.
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?
The description explains the output format and enumerates the types of counts included, which is helpful for understanding what to expect. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple status tool with no parameters, this is sufficient. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
There are no parameters in the schema, so the description cannot add meaning beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema coverage is effectively 100% (no parameters to describe).
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it reports live item counts per kind in the memory store. The verb 'reports' is specific, and the resource ('memory holds') is identified. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get and history by explicitly mentioning they are for specific item retrieval.
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?
The description indicates when not to use the tool ('Use get or history instead for one specific item'), which implicitly guides when to use status for an overview. However, it does not explicitly state conditions like 'when you need a summary' or 'when you need counts,' so it falls slightly short of fully explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: removes the Always binding from an existing item; every other binding and field stays untouched. Use revise instead when anything besides the binding needs to change. Idempotent - unpinning an item with no Always binding changes nothing and is not an error. On a replica this queues instead of writing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error). Refused, loudly, when removing Always would leave the item with no binding left to ever fire on - give it a Moment or Target binding first, or leave it pinned. Replies 'unpinned' with the event sequence, 'already unpinned', or the refusal text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id to unpin (remove the Always binding from it). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: replica queueing behavior, idempotency semantics, refusal conditions, and exact reply values. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: main operation, alternative tool, idempotency, replica behavior, refusal condition, and response values. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-contained. It covers normal behavior, edge cases, failure modes, and all possible replies, so an agent can invoke it correctly without external context.
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 100% and the sole required parameter id is already described as 'The id to unpin (remove the Always binding from it).' The description repeats that semantic but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'removes the Always binding from an existing item.' It clearly distinguishes itself from revise by noting revise is for changes beyond the binding, and the sibling set includes pin as the inverse operation.
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?
Explicitly says to use revise instead when anything besides the binding needs to change, and instructs what to do if unpinning would leave no binding: give it a Moment or Target binding first, or leave it pinned. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Code lane: answers who defines and who uses one symbol name - the question to ask before changing a function, struct or variable, since the reference list IS the blast radius. Use outline instead to see everything one file declares. Read-only. Resolution is by bare name only, so two unrelated things sharing a name come back together - open the files rather than treating the list as a conclusion. Replies with every definition and use site as file:line, the indexed commit, and whether the checkout has since moved on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The bare symbol name: a function, class, struct or variable. | |
| limit | No | Most sites to return per side. Defaults to 30. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: resolution is by bare name only, results can mix unrelated same-name symbols, and the reply includes file:line sites, the indexed commit, and whether the checkout has moved on.
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?
The description is compact yet information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, blast-radius framing, alternative tool, read-only note, resolution caveat, and return-value summary.
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 tool with no output schema, the description clearly states what the reply contains: every definition and use site as file:line, the indexed commit, and checkout drift status. Combined with annotations covering the read-only and idempotent behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that name is a bare symbol name and mentions definitions/use sites, but it does not add substantive new meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'answers who defines and who uses one symbol name,' and frames it as the question to ask before changing a function, struct, or variable. It also distinguishes itself from outline by naming the alternative explicitly.
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?
It gives clear when-to-use context ('before changing a function, struct or variable') and names an alternative tool ('Use outline instead to see everything one file declares'). It also warns about the bare-name resolution caveat and tells the agent to open files rather than treat the list as a conclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1revise12 fields changedInput schema / properties / check_kind / descriptionPrevious value: -"One of: path_exists, contains, absent, absent_all, forbidden, requires. Omit all four\ncheck_* fields to keep the current check untouched; pass check_kind as \"\" to clear it\n(refused if check_path/check_literal/check_literals is also given). Give check_kind plus\nwhichever of check_path/check_literal/check_literals the kind takes, together, to replace\nthe check wholesale - see RememberArgs' own check_kind note for what each kind needs and\nwhich to prefer."New value: +"One of: path_exists, contains, absent, absent_all, forbidden, requires. Omit all four\ncheck_* fields to keep the current check untouched; pass check_kind as \"\" to clear it\n(refused if check_path/check_literal/check_literals is also given) - see `clear_check`\nbelow for the spelling that reaches this server from an assistant. Give check_kind plus\nwhichever of check_path/check_literal/check_literals the kind takes, together, to replace\nthe check wholesale - see RememberArgs' own check_kind note for what each kind needs and\nwhich to prefer."Input schema / properties / clear_checkAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Set true to clear the check - the same clear `check_kind: \"\"` above\ndocuments, same fix and convention as `clear_severity`'s own doc\ncomment (see there for the defect and the evidence). Refused, naming\nthe conflict, together with a non-empty check_kind, or with\ncheck_path/check_literal/check_literals - clearing takes none of the\nfour; give a real check_kind (plus whatever it needs) to replace the\ncheck instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / clear_expiresAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Set true to clear expires - same fix and convention as\n`clear_severity` above. Refused, naming the conflict, if `expires` is\nalso given here as a real, non-empty value.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / clear_falsifierAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Set true to clear falsifier - same fix and convention as\n`clear_severity` above (still refused outright on a Rule/Orientation,\nsame as `falsifier: \"\"` above, by the same ground that guards\ncreation). Refused, naming the conflict, if `falsifier` is also given\nhere as a real, non-empty value.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / clear_keyAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Set true to clear key - same fix and convention as `clear_severity`\nabove. Refused, naming the conflict, if `key` is also given here as a\nreal, non-empty value.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / clear_projectAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Set true to clear project (make it global) - same fix and convention\nas `clear_severity` above. Refused, naming the conflict, if `project`\nis also given here as a real, non-empty value.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / clear_severityAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Set true to clear severity - the same clear `severity: \"\"` above\ndocuments, run through the identical code path, never a second\nmechanism. THE DEFECT THIS FIXES, bitten twice (2026-09-09 and\n2026-09-11): an assistant's tool-call layer drops an empty-string\nargument before it ever reaches this server (the field arrives as\nthough it was never mentioned, or the call itself is rejected before\nthat), and a literal '\"\"' arrives as two quote characters, not an\nempty value - so the one documented way to clear a field was never\nactually reachable from an assistant. Both sessions gave up,\nretracted the rule and stored a fresh one with no check, silently\nlosing its history. This flag is the one that works from an\nassistant; the empty string above still works for a caller that can\nsend one (the JSON-RPC harness). Refused, naming the conflict, if\n`severity` is ALSO given here as a real, non-empty value - say one or\nthe other, never both.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / expires / descriptionPrevious value: -"Omit to keep the current expiry; pass \"\" to clear it."New value: +"Omit to keep the current expiry; pass \"\" to clear it (see\n`clear_expires` below for the spelling that reaches this server from\nan assistant)."Input schema / properties / falsifier / descriptionPrevious value: -"Omit to keep the current falsifier; pass \"\" to clear it (a Rule or\nOrientation left with none is refused, same as at creation)."New value: +"Omit to keep the current falsifier; pass \"\" to clear it (a Rule or\nOrientation left with none is refused, same as at creation - see\n`clear_falsifier` below for the spelling that reaches this server\nfrom an assistant)."Input schema / properties / key / descriptionPrevious value: -"Omit to keep the current key; pass \"\" to clear it."New value: +"Omit to keep the current key; pass \"\" to clear it (see `clear_key`\nbelow for the spelling that reaches this server from an assistant)."Input schema / properties / project / descriptionPrevious value: -"Omit to keep the current project; pass \"\" to make it global."New value: +"Omit to keep the current project; pass \"\" to make it global (see\n`clear_project` below for the spelling that reaches this server from\nan assistant)."Input schema / properties / severity / descriptionPrevious value: -"One of: irreversible, costly, house_style. Omit to keep the current\nvalue; pass \"\" to clear it."New value: +"One of: irreversible, costly, house_style. Omit to keep the current\nvalue; pass \"\" to clear it (see `clear_severity` below for the\nspelling of a clear that actually reaches this server from an\nassistant)."v2.3.2revise1 field changedInput schema / properties / becauseAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Required when this revise WEAKENS a Rule/Orientation that carries a\ncheck: clearing or changing the check, lowering or clearing severity,\nremoving a binding (target, moment or Always), or narrowing scope\nfrom global to one project. Say in one sentence why - it is written\ninto this item's own history (see `history`), the same way retract's\nreason is, so the owner can read later why a rule that could refuse a\nwrite lost its teeth. Blank or missing on one of those five is\nrefused outright. Accepted and stored on any other revise too, but\nnever required for one.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}shelve8 fields changedInput schema / properties / body / descriptionPrevious value: -"The rest, at any length. Optional."New value: +"The rest, at any length. Optional. See `title`'s own note on `retire`."Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"CORRECT AN ENTRY THAT ALREADY EXISTS instead of filing a new one: its number, as the shelf\nlisting shows it. The fields given replace what is there; the number stays, and the version\nreplaced stays readable. Use this whenever a filed entry turns out wrong, badly worded or\nmissing a label - a second entry saying the same thing better makes a shelf unreadable. Omit\nit to file something new."New value: +"CORRECT AN ENTRY THAT ALREADY EXISTS instead of filing a new one: its number, as the shelf\nlisting shows it. The fields given replace what is there; the number stays, and the version\nreplaced stays readable. Use this whenever a filed entry turns out wrong, badly worded or\nmissing a label - a second entry saying the same thing better makes a shelf unreadable. Omit\nit to file something new. Required together with `retire`."Input schema / properties / labels / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional labels for filtering inside a shelf."New value: +"Optional labels for filtering inside a shelf. See `title`'s own note on `retire`."Input schema / properties / new_shelf_named_by_ownerAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "THE OWNER JUST NAMED A NEW SHELF - repeat that name here exactly as he gave it, and it is\ncreated (the shelf ceiling still applies) and this entry filed onto it in the same call.\nTHE GAP THIS CLOSES: creating a shelf used to live only behind the `library` command-line\nbinary's own `shelf-new` - an agent that asked and was answered still had no way to act on the\nanswer, which was a dead end at a new user's very first recipe. Never fill this in on your own\njudgement or to get past a refusal - only after the owner himself named it. Must match `shelf`\non this same call, or the write is refused. Meaningless together with `id`: correcting or\nretiring an entry never creates a shelf.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / retireAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Take this entry out of the shelf listing and out of search, without deleting it - `library`\nstill returns it whole, marked retired, when asked for by its number. Works only together\nwith `id`, and only alone: refused together with a title, body or label change (one thing per\ncall), and refused without `id`. Requires `retire_because`.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / retire_becauseAdded value: +{
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Required together with `retire: true`: why this entry no longer belongs on the shelf, in a\nreal sentence - the same requirement `retract` makes on the code lane, and for the same\nreason: without it nobody can tell a decision from an accident later. Ignored when retire is\nnot set.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / shelf / descriptionPrevious value: -"An EXISTING shelf. If none fits, ask the owner - you may not create one."New value: +"An EXISTING shelf, or the one just named in `new_shelf_named_by_owner` on this same call."Input schema / properties / title / descriptionPrevious value: -"One line that stands on its own. This is the index. When correcting an\nentry (see `id`), leave it empty to keep the title it has."New value: +"One line that stands on its own. This is the index. When correcting an entry (see `id`),\nleave it empty to keep the title it has. Leave it empty on a `retire` too - retire is refused\ntogether with a title, body or label change."v0.1.0gethistorylibrarylookupmarkoutlinepinrememberresolveretractrevisesearch_codeshelvestatusunpinwhere_usedScored across 16 tools
Each tool occupies a clearly distinct niche, and descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to prevent misselection (get vs lookup vs history, outline vs where_used vs search_code, mark vs revise vs retract). The read/write/judge/lane boundaries are unambiguous.
All names are lowercase and consistently styled, but the set mixes bare verbs (mark, pin, revise, remember, retract) with nouns (status, history, library) and only a couple of multi-word names (search_code, where_used). Readable and predictable enough, with minor convention drift.
At 16 tools it sits at the upper edge, but the domain spans memory CRUD, bindings, conflict resolution, a separate library lane, and a code index, so each tool earns its place. No obviously redundant tools.
Full item lifecycle is covered (remember/revise/retract/get/lookup/history), plus binding management (pin/unpin), conflict resolution (resolve), judgement (mark), the library lane (shelve/library), and code search. Only minor gaps, such as no explicit bulk listing of bindings or pinned items, which agents can work around via status/lookup.
Agent memory that refuses to guess: evidence-gated recall, exact-source reads, verifiable deletion.
Local-first, governed memory and session continuity for AI coding agents. No cloud, no telemetry.
Governed company memory: search decisions, rules and client facts; propose updates for review.
Local-first long-term memory for AI agents, with byte-recomputable signed verification receipts.