fetchFetch the full text of a memory by its id (from search). Cite its url when you use it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | id della memoria |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| metadata | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what is fetched (full text) and the citation expectation, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as errors, missing ids, or output shape beyond what annotations and schema already imply.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. The citation instruction is compact and actionable.
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 a single required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. The citation instruction also sets a clear expectation about how the result should be used.
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?
The schema already documents 'id' at 100% coverage, providing the baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by specifying that the id comes 'from search', which helps the agent understand where to obtain the value. This extra guidance justifies a score above baseline.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('memory'), and scope ('full text ... by id'), and clarifies that ids come from search. This makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling 'search' tool, which is used to find memories in the first place.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: after a search, when you have a memory id and need the full text. It also adds the citation behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.
Search and recall both retrieve from memory and could be confused, but the descriptions distinguish search as returning results and recall as producing a narrative synthesis. cortex_write_status and cortex_conflicts also both touch conflicts, but one is tied to a specific queued write, so agents can mostly choose correctly.
Most tools share a cortex_ prefix and verb-like names such as write, forget, and recall, but cortex_conflicts is a noun, cortex_write_status is a verb+noun compound, and fetch/search lack the prefix. The convention is readable but not consistently applied.
Seven tools cover the memory domain without bloat. Each tool maps to a distinct operation, and the count feels well-scoped for a persistent memory server.
The surface covers the core memory lifecycle: write, search/recall, fetch by id, delete, and conflict/status inspection. No obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.