Skip to main content
Glama

Remember

remember
Idempotent

Save data the agent will need to reuse later — across this conversation or across sessions. Use when you discover something worth carrying forward (a resolved ticker, a target address, a user preference, a research subject) so you don't have to look it up again. Stored as a key-value pair scoped by your identifier. Authenticated users get persistent memory; anonymous sessions retain memory for 24 hours. Pair with recall to retrieve later, forget to delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (e.g., "subject_property", "target_ticker", "user_preference")
valueYesValue to store (any text — findings, addresses, preferences, notes)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description focuses on scoping (by identifier), persistence differences, and the key-value pair structure. No contradiction with annotations; description adds non-obvious behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences, each carrying distinct value: core function, usage signals, storage model, and paired tools. No redundancy; effectively front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple key-value memory tool with no output schema and only two required parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, storage duration, and companion tools. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing descriptions for both key and value. The description suggests a naming convention for keys (examples) but does not add new constraints or format requirements beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('data'), provides concrete examples of what to store (resolved ticker, target address, user preference), and explicitly contrasts with sibling tools (recall, forget). This fully differentiates it from tools like remember, recall, and forget.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you discover something worth carrying forward') and pairs it with recall and forget for retrieval and deletion. It also clarifies the persistence model (authenticated users get persistent memory, anonymous 24-hour retention).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools serve nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all hunt prediction-market opportunities with overlapping outputs. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent can easily call the wrong one.

Naming Consistency4/5

All 33 names use lowercase snake_case with descriptive, mostly verb-first words (ask_, compare_, discover_, search_), and domain suites are consistently prefixed (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile or recent_changes (noun/adjective-first) keep it from a perfect 5.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well into the 'too many' range, especially for a server nominally about the narrow Complex Portal database. Many tools (memory, feedback, subscriptions, trending) are generic meta-utilities unrelated to the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated 'Complex Portal' domain, only search_complexes and get_complex exist, with no organism-scoped search, batch access, or additional lifecycle coverage, making the surface severely incomplete for that name. The actual Pipeworx platform is broadly covered, but the server-name mismatch makes the set feel incomplete for its advertised purpose.