Store a memory, fact, decision, or preference for later retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Tags for categorization | |
| type | Yes | Type of memory | |
| content | Yes | Content of the memory | |
| metadata | No | Additional metadata | |
| source_session_id | No | Optional reference to source session |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Human-readable tool result text.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation. The description adds no extra behavior context such as duplicate creation risk, authentication needs, or that it creates a new memory each time. It neither contradicts annotations nor provides meaningful additional disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, compact sentence with no wasted words. The key verb and object are front-loaded, making it appropriately concise for the stated purpose.
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 an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the tool description is minimal. It omits mention of tags, metadata, idempotency, or when to use it relative to other memory tools. The phrase 'for later retrieval' gives some context, but the description relies heavily on the schema and annotations for essential detail.
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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'fact, decision, or preference' which mirrors the enum values, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema's property descriptions.
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 stores a memory, fact, decision, or preference with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete/update/search by implying creation, but it does not explicitly cite 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_memory or search_memories. The description only states the action without prerequisites, exclusions, or context for choosing it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially the save/delete actions and help. However, save_context vs save_session and get_context vs search overlap enough that an agent could select the wrong one without reading closely.
All tools share the palim_ prefix and use snake_case, with a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern. help, resume, and search are verb-only names, which is a minor deviation from the otherwise predictable scheme.
Nine tools is a well-scoped number for a memory and session management server. Each tool has a defined role, and there is no obvious bloat or excessive proliferation.
The save_session description explicitly references palim_update_session_metadata and palim_update_session_references, but those tools are not available, creating a workflow dead end. There is also no update/delete mechanism for stored memories, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.