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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate write (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds scoping, persistence (auth vs anonymous), which goes beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded purpose, no waste. Each sentence contributes essential information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema, but description adequately covers usage context. Could mention overwrite behavior, but idempotency hint covers it.

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 covers 100% of parameters. Description gives examples but does not add new semantics beyond what schema provides. Baseline score 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?

Clearly states 'save data the agent will need to reuse later' with concrete examples (ticker, address, preference). Distinct from siblings recall/forget.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use when you discover something worth carrying forward' and pairs with recall/forget. No explicit exclusions but context is clear.

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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have detailed usage guidance, but there are several overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research; discover_tools vs suggest_questions; entity_profile vs recent_changes; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence. The descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always crisp enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly lower_snake_case, but conventions vary widely: some are verb-first (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), some are noun/adjective phrases (recent_changes, entity_profile), and several use brand prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). The naming is readable but lacks a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and the scope sprawls beyond news/data into prediction-market arbitrage, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility audits, memory, subscriptions, and llms.txt generation. Each tool may be useful, but the set feels like several different servers merged into one, making it oversized and harder to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The research workflow is well covered: universal routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profiles/comparisons, change feeds, discovery/onboarding, subscriptions, and memory all exist. Minor gaps include no direct pipeworx:// citation fetch tool and no broader account/profile management, but agents can work around these.