MemoryRouter

Search MemoryRouter knowledge

search

Read-only

Use this legacy compatibility alias when a client explicitly requests a tool named search. It searches the OAuth-selected MemoryRouter vault without modifying it. For normal ChatGPT recall, prefer search_memories; this tool does not provide citable item permalinks or Company Knowledge fetch support.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Natural-language search query.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying 'without modifying it'. It adds extra behavioral context by disclosing limitations (no citable item permalinks, no Company Knowledge fetch support), which goes beyond the safety 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: usage context, function, and limitation/alternative. It is front-loaded with the key usage instruction and contains no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, limitations, and alternatives. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'query' parameter with a description (100% coverage). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema already covers it, so baseline 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function as a legacy compatibility alias that searches the MemoryRouter vault. It uses specific verbs ('searches') and resource ('MemoryRouter vault'), and distinguishes itself from the preferred search_memories tool by noting limitations.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when a client requests a tool named 'search'. It also provides an alternative: 'prefer search_memories' for normal recall, and explains the trade-off (no citable permalinks or Company Knowledge support).

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

All MemoryRouter 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct, but search and search_memories overlap in purpose, with search being a legacy alias with fewer features. The consolidation workflow tools (consolidate_memories and commit_reflections) are very specific, but their descriptions clearly delineate their roles. Overall, minor overlap exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., commit_reflections, consolidate_memories, date_search_memories). The only minor inconsistency is the pair search and search_memories, where search deviates from the descriptive pattern of its counterpart. Otherwise, naming is clear and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

The server has 10 tools, which is appropriate for a memory management system. Each tool covers a distinct operation (CRUD, search, consolidation, inspection), and the count is neither too few nor too many for the stated purpose of managing and querying a personal memory vault.

Completeness4/5

The tools provide complete CRUD (store, search, retrieve, delete) plus consolidation and inspection workflows. Gaps are minor: there is no explicit tool to list all top-level categories or tags, and update_memory is absent, though consolidation and deletion cover lifecycle needs. The surface is nearly complete.

Resources

Need Help?