Restaura una memoria desde memoria_historica a memoria_vectorial.
Reconstruye embedding automáticamente. La memoria vuelve al tier HOT.
Args:
historica_id: ID de la memoria en memoria_historica.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| historica_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the embedding is reconstructed automatically and that the memory is returned to the HOT tier. However, it does not clarify whether the source memory is moved, copied, or deleted from memoria_historica, which is a significant side-effect gap.
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 is compact and front-loaded: the action and resource flow appear first, followed by key behavioral details, then the parameter explanation. No sentence is wasted.
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?
The tool is simple, has one parameter, and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, the description omits side effects, prerequisites, and conditions for use, leaving the operational context partially incomplete.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'historica_id' is defined as 'ID de la memoria en memoria_historica', giving meaning beyond the bare integer type in the input schema. This is sufficient for a single required parameter.
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 ('Restaura'), a clear resource flow ('desde memoria_historica a memoria_vectorial'), and the observable outcome ('La memoria vuelve al tier HOT'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_hipocampo or consolidate_hipocampo.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling hipocampo tools. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the operation name 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.