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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds behavioral context: key-value storage, scoping by identifier, and retention details (persistent for authenticated users, 24 hours for anonymous). 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph that covers purpose, usage, paired tools, and retention. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the main function, though it could be slightly more terse.

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?

With only two simple required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: it explains what it stores, how it is scoped, and how it integrates with other tools. No significant gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds value by providing example keys (e.g., 'subject_property', 'target_ticker') that clarify usage beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: saving data for reuse across conversations and sessions. It provides specific examples (resolved ticker, target address, user preference) that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'forget' and 'recall'.

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?

The description explicitly advises using the tool when discovering something worth carrying forward and mentions pairing with 'recall' and 'forget'. It differentiates persistence between authenticated and anonymous sessions, offering clear context for when to use it.

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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly defined purpose with detailed descriptions, and despite some composite tools, there is no ambiguity in when to use which one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb_noun and noun_noun patterns, with some purely verb names, lacking a consistent convention. While readable, the pattern is not predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 23 tools, the server is on the heavy side for a mixed-purpose toolset. Each tool earns its place, but the count feels slightly bloated for the breadth of domains covered.

Completeness3/5

The server covers several domains (AI visibility, betting, entity lookup, etc.) with reasonable depth, but the lack of a unified domain means some areas feel under-served (e.g., no update/delete except memory).