AgentPlaybooks

Read memory

read_memory

Read one memory entry by key and return its value, tags, tier, summary, and metadata. This is not a pure read: it increments access_count and updates last_accessed_at as a side effect, without changing the stored value. There is no update_memory; use write_memory to overwrite a key. Use search_memory to find keys, get_memory_context for a tiered summary, or get_memory_tree for hierarchical task graphs. Do not pass memory_type; that filter belongs to search_memory. Pass playbook_id as the UUID or GUID of the playbook this call should target.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes	Memory key to read
`playbook_id`	Yes	UUID or GUID of the target playbook

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No
`tags`	No
`tier`	No
`value`	No
`summary`	No
`priority`	No
`parent_key`	No
`updated_at`	No
`description`	No
`access_count`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating this is not a pure read, describing the side effects (increments access_count, updates last_accessed_at) and clarifying that the stored value is unchanged. It also preemptively addresses the missing update_memory tool. The annotations (readOnlyHint: false) are consistent with this, so no contradiction.

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 three sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then the side-effect caveat, then practical usage guidance. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 parameters), and the description covers purpose, side effects, alternatives, and a parameter format caveat. The output schema is present, so the description does not need to detail return structures. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that playbook_id should be a UUID or GUID and by warning against passing memory_type (which belongs to search_memory). This goes beyond the schema's own 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 uses a specific verb ('read one memory entry by key') and explicitly lists the return fields (value, tags, tier, summary, metadata). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining there is no update_memory and by naming alternative tools for different use cases.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by naming alternatives: use search_memory to find keys, get_memory_context for tiered summaries, and get_memory_tree for hierarchical graphs. It also states what NOT to pass (memory_type) and clarifies the correct format for playbook_id.

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

All AgentPlaybooks tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., delete_memory vs delete_skill vs delete_run), and even similar operations like read_memory vs search_memory vs get_memory_context have clearly differentiated purposes. The descriptions are detailed and explicitly cross-reference other tools to avoid confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, read_*, etc.), with plurals used uniformly for list operations (list_playbooks, list_runs, list_secrets). No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs; the naming is highly predictable and systematic.

Tool Count4/5

With 48 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent set of domains (playbooks, personas, skills, memory, canvas, runs, secrets, MCP servers, and discovery). While this exceeds the typical 3-15 range, each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the comprehensive playbook management scope, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for every entity type: playbooks, personas, skills (including versioning and rollback), memory (including hierarchical tasks and tiering), canvas (with locking and patching), runs, secrets (including rotation and usage), and MCP servers. Additionally, find_tools covers discovery for federated tools, leaving no apparent dead ends.

Read memory

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources