Markdown-first memory infrastructure for AI agents with hybrid search
This server has severe quality gaps across all dimensions. Tool definitions lack comprehensive parameter descriptions, output schemas are not documented, and error handling guidance is minimal. Only 2 of 7 tools have schema information visible. Several tools have minimal descriptions (under 20 chars), and critical details like output structure, error cases, and parameter constraints are absent. The mem_do tool is particularly problematic, it's a generic action router that violates single-responsibility principle. While the tools are read-only (low risk), the definitions do not meet production standards for agent tool integration.
Route actions to registered tools
List memory entries
Read a memory entry
Recall memory entries
Search memory entries using hybrid search
Get memory statistics
Get memory status
Missing output schemas: Only 1 of 7 tools (mem_read) has any parameter description, and ZERO tools document their return types or output structure. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract data without knowing what fields to expect.
Generic tool name and logic: mem_do is a universal action router that violates single-responsibility principle. No specification of valid actions, parameter mapping, or error cases. This is an anti-pattern that forces agents to guess which actions are available and how to invoke them.
Insufficient parameter descriptions: mem_recall and mem_list have empty input schemas with no explanation of filters, pagination, or constraints. mem_search has only a 'query' parameter, no guidance on query syntax, length limits, or search algorithm details.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 46 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
Minimal tool descriptions: mem_status (18 chars), mem_stats (20 chars), mem_list (19 chars), mem_recall (19 chars) all fall below or at the 20-char threshold and provide zero context for agent selection. No guidance on when to use mem_search vs mem_recall, or mem_status vs mem_stats.
No error handling or recovery guidance: No tool documents what errors can occur, how to recover, or what the LLM should do if a call fails. mem_do in particular provides no insight into action validation or failure modes.
No pagination or result limiting guidance: mem_list and mem_search do not specify how many results are returned, whether pagination is available, or what the response structure is. Large result sets will exhaust context windows.
mem_do's 'action' parameter accepts arbitrary strings with no enum, validation, or documentation. This opens the tool to hallucinated action names and silent failures.