rememberRead a single Lady Whiskerdown memory by id (as returned by recall). No graph or entity enrichment: the receiver endpoint returns the memory itself, scoped to this key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Memory id (number or m#N as shown by recall), or a linked Kit's cite such as Shiro:m#1234 | |
| kit_session_id | No | Your own session ID from wake; reuse for this conversation. A child or subagent must wake separately, without its parent's ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Memory id (number or m#N as shown by recall), or a linked Kit's cite such as kit-company:m#1234"New value: +"Memory id (number or m#N as shown by recall), or a linked Kit's cite such as Shiro:m#1234"Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Memory id (number or m#N as shown by recall)"New value: +"Memory id (number or m#N as shown by recall), or a linked Kit's cite such as kit-company:m#1234"Input schema / properties / kit_session_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your own session ID from wake; reuse for this conversation. A child or subagent must wake separately, without its parent's ID.",
+ "maxLength": 160,
+ "minLength": 8,
+ "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9:_-]+$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Memory id"New value: +"Memory id (number or m#N as shown by recall)"Input schema / properties / id / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +[
+ "number",
+ "string"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the disclosure burden and does add real context: this is a read, results are 'scoped to this key' (an access/visibility constraint), and the receiver endpoint returns no graph or entity enrichment. It does not cover failure behavior for a missing or foreign-key id, which keeps it from a 5.
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, both load-bearing, with scope stated first and the exclusion (no enrichment) second. Nothing is repeated from the name or title and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.
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 fetch with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: where the id comes from, that the result is the raw memory scoped to this key, and that no enrichment is applied. It stops short of indicating the memory's shape or not-found behavior, a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.
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%, and the schema already documents both id (including the m#N and cross-Kit cite forms) and kit_session_id. The description only reinforces that the id originates from recall, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read a single Lady Whiskerdown memory by id') and immediately scopes it against the sibling that produces ids ('as returned by recall'). It also rules out graph/entity enrichment, so an agent can tell this apart from recall or any enrichment variant without opening the schema.
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 implies the intended workflow by tying the id to recall's output, which tells the agent to call recall first for discovery and use this for single-record fetch. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., batch reads or search), but the context is clear enough to select correctly.
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.