mitosis

Read one item from the user’s memory

fetch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the full contents of a single item from the user’s memory by its id. Ids come from search results. Use this when a search result looks relevant and you need the whole record rather than the excerpt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The id of an item, exactly as returned by `search`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The id that was requested.
`url`	Yes	Absolute link to this record on the user’s memory graph.
`text`	Yes	The record’s full contents as plain text. May be empty if the record has none.
`title`	Yes	Human-readable name of the record.
`metadata`	Yes	Provenance, where known. Any key may be absent.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints. The description adds behavioral context about returning full contents versus excerpts, which goes beyond the annotations. 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no wasted words. It communicates purpose and usage guideline efficiently.

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 read tool with robust annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It provides enough context for correct invocation without needing to explain return structure.

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% with the id parameter described. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that ids are exactly as returned by search, reinforcing correct usage.

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 retrieves a single item by id, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling search by noting it returns the full record rather than an excerpt.

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 says when to use it ('when a search result looks relevant and you need the whole record') and points to the alternative search for excerpts. Also notes ids come from search results, giving clear context.

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

All mitosis 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between cortex_ask, cortex_recall, and search, all of which retrieve from the user's memory. cortex_recall explicitly describes itself as a subset of cortex_ask, and search's description is nearly identical to cortex_ask's core function, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly. Other tools are more distinct, but this triple overlap creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming is inconsistent: memory tools are split between a cortex_* prefix (ask, recall, manifest, status, etc.) and bare fetch/search, with no clear rule for which gets the prefix. Within cortex_*, some are verbs (ask, recall, remember) and some are nouns (manifest, status, connectable_sources), and platform tools use get_/list_/search_ prefixes, resulting in a mixed and unpredictable naming pattern.

Tool Count4/5

13 tools is a reasonable number for a server covering both memory operations and platform information. However, the presence of three overlapping retrieval tools (cortex_ask, cortex_recall, search) slightly inflates the count, suggesting some redundancy rather than each tool earning a unique place.

Completeness4/5

The server covers core workflows: reading memory (ask, search, recall, fetch, manifest), writing memory (remember, ingest_conversation), checking health (status), and accessing platform info (get_platform_status, get_pricing, list_skills, search_docs). Minor gaps include no explicit update/delete for individual memories and no direct tool to connect new sources (only listings of connectable ones), but these are often user-driven actions.

Resources

Need Help?