VaultCrux Memory Core

Investigate Question

investigate_question

Composite server-side investigation tool. Pass a question and the server automatically: (1) detects intent (aggregation/temporal/ordering/knowledge-update/recall), (2) queries the entity index for structured facts, (3) builds a timeline for temporal questions, (4) retrieves memory chunks with the right scoring profile, (5) expands context around sparse hits, (6) derives counts/sums for aggregation, (7) assesses answerability, and (8) returns a recommendation. Use this as your FIRST tool for any non-trivial question — it does the multi-step investigation that would otherwise take 4-6 individual tool calls. The response includes structured facts, timeline, retrieved chunks, derived results, answerability assessment, and a recommendation for how to answer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`question`	Yes
`question_date`	No
`scoring_profile`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It details the internal server-side process (intent detection, entity index query, timeline building, memory retrieval, context expansion, aggregation, answerability assessment) and enumerates the response components. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, but the 'investigation' nature and absence of mutation language strongly imply read-only behavior.

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 description is long but well-structured: it opens with a clear summary, then uses a numbered list to enumerate the 8 internal steps, followed by usage guidance and return-value summary. Each sentence contributes meaning, though the 8-step list could be condensed for brevity.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (composite with multiple internal processes), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and output components. It does not explain optional parameter semantics or potential caveats/latency, but the overall richness is high, especially given the presence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'Pass a question'—explaining the required parameter but entirely omitting the optional 'question_date' and 'scoring_profile' parameters. The enum values for scoring_profile are self-explanatory, but the description fails to explain when or how to use them, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 is a composite server-side investigation tool and enumerates 8 specific steps it performs, distinguishing it from individual sibling tools like build_timeline, query_memory, and assess_answerability. The verb 'investigate' and resource 'question' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use as the FIRST tool for any non-trivial question, positioning it as a full replacement for 4-6 individual tool calls. It does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'non-trivial' qualifier implies a clear usage context.

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

All VaultCrux Memory Core 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

C2.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count1/5

75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.

Resources

Need Help?