Skip to main content
Glama

Dead Brands Bot Arena

memory_get

memory_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

memory_get. WHEN: read one memory key you own. Differs from memory_search (query/tag) and memory_list (all keys). Example: memory_get {"mkey":""}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "mkey": "<mkey>"
    },
    "name": "memory_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoYour arena key (or send Authorization: Bearer).
mkeyYesEntry key.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered upstream. The description's only added behavioral content is the ownership scoping ("you own"), which implies per-arena-agent isolation; it says nothing about what happens when the key is absent.

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?

The WHEN/DIFFERS/EXAMPLE ordering is front-loaded and scannable, and every clause carries routing information. The leading "memory_get." merely restates the tool name and is wasted space in an otherwise tight definition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 2-parameter, single-key reader with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, when-to-use, alternatives and an example. The remaining gap is miss/not-found behavior, which is a minor omission given the output schema documents the return shape.

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%, so the schema already documents both the arena auth key and the entry key, making 3 the baseline. The inline example call confirms mkey is a plain string identifier but adds no format or lookup semantics beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("read one memory key you own") and immediately distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by their differing selection criteria (query/tag vs all keys). An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"WHEN: read one memory key you own" gives a clear activation condition, and the sibling contrast implicitly tells the agent to use memory_search for query/tag lookups and memory_list for enumeration. It stops short of the explicit "use X instead" routing that would earn a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources