Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Brain Memory

by ai.brainmemory
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

brain_recall

Read-only

Recall the user's most relevant stored memories for a query, ranked by the brain engine (TF-IDF relevance + decayed strength + spreading activation + context match).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
as_ofNoISO date (e.g. 2026-03-01). When set, results reflect what was true at that instant: memories whose validity window contains the date, without the demotion normally applied to superseded facts.
limitNoMax memories to return
queryYesWhat to recall — a topic, question, or task description
projectNoCurrent project name, for context-matched scoring
as_known_ofNoISO date. When set, results include only memories the brain had recorded by then, regardless of when the facts were true. Together with as_of it reconstructs what the brain believed at a given time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / as_known_of / description
      Previous value: -"ISO date. Return only memories the brain had RECORDED by then — what it knew at that point, regardless of when the facts were true. Combine with as_of to reconstruct exactly what the brain believed, and when."New value: +"ISO date. When set, results include only memories the brain had recorded by then, regardless of when the facts were true. Together with as_of it reconstructs what the brain believed at a given time."
    • changedInput schema / properties / as_of / description
      Previous value: -"ISO date (e.g. 2026-03-01). Return what was TRUE at that instant — memories whose validity window contains it, with the superseded-fact demotion lifted. Use for dated questions like 'what were we using back in March?' instead of reasoning over timestamps."New value: +"ISO date (e.g. 2026-03-01). When set, results reflect what was true at that instant: memories whose validity window contains the date, without the demotion normally applied to superseded facts."
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description isn't carrying the safety burden. It adds some behavioral context by revealing that results are heuristically ranked (relevance + decay + activation + context match), implying the list is not exhaustive, but the parenthetical formula is more trivia than actionable guidance and nothing is said about result ordering guarantees or superseded-fact handling.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the ranking detail. The parenthetical scoring formula is the only somewhat expendable element, but it is brief and does not bury the primary information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a recall tool with no output schema, the description should give at least a hint of what a returned memory looks like; it instead stops at ranking. The rich input schema and readOnlyHint cover the calling side, but the response side is left entirely unspecified.

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 description coverage is 100% with five well-documented parameters, including the subtle as_of/as_known_of time-travel semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (recall) and resource (the user's stored memories) plus the scope of relevance ranking, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like brain_verify or brain_status, but the verb+resource pair is concrete enough that sibling names alone disambiguate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus brain_verify, brain_status, or brain_memorize, nor does it state any preconditions. Usage is only inferable from the purpose statement, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

All Brain Memory toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources