Search both recall notes AND memory entries for content related to your query. Uses LLM re-ranking for relevance. Registered handle + secret required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | max results (default 5, max 10) | |
| query | Yes | natural-language recall query | |
| handle | Yes | ||
| secret | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint are true, establishing safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it uses LLM re-ranking for relevance and searches two distinct sources, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
The description consists of two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, immediately conveying purpose. Every sentence is informative without unnecessary words.
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?
Given the four parameters, no output schema, and fifty percent schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or how results are ordered, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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 50%; the description clarifies that handle and secret are required credentials, adding meaning beyond their raw schema types. However, it does not elaborate on the query or limit parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the added value is partial.
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 description clearly states it searches both recall notes and memory entries for content, using LLM re-ranking. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_memory (which likely searches only memory entries) and general search tools.
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?
The description mentions that a registered handle and secret are required, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like search_memory or list_memory. No explicit context or exclusions are given.
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.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.