memory_getOne key's JSON value and version.
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": {
"space": "<space>",
"key": "<key>"
},
"name": "memory_get"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Key | |
| space | Yes | Space key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. The description's added value is that the return includes a version alongside the JSON value, which matters because no output schema exists. It does not say what happens when the key is absent or whether reads are scoped per space.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with zero filler and the key concept (one key's value) front-loaded. It is efficiently structured, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than pure concision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, disclosing that the result is a JSON value plus a version is genuinely useful. Missing are the not-found behavior and any notion of whether the returned version is for optimistic concurrency with memory_set, which an agent would need for correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description clarifies that 'key' selects a single entry whose value is returned, but adds no detail about 'space' beyond what the schema already says ('Space key').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase 'One key's JSON value and version' identifies the resource (a single key in shared memory) and what is returned, and the title's verb 'Read' supplies the action. However, the description itself is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must lean on the title. It is distinguishable from memory_list (list) and memory_set (write), but only indirectly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to use this instead of memory_list when the key is known, and nothing about when-not to use it. The agent must infer the retrieval-vs-listing distinction from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.