continental_recallFetch one memory by key. Returns the sealed value exactly as you stored it; unseal it with your own key. Counts toward your hourly read cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The memory key | |
| api_key | No | Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present.",
+ "pattern": "^tc_(live|visit)_[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / key / descriptionAdded value: +"The memory key"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations: the returned value is sealed, it is returned exactly as stored, the caller must unseal it with their own key, and the operation consumes read quota. This tells the agent what to expect without contradicting 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 is three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by behavioral and quota information. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.
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 simple single-key lookup with complete parameter schemas and safety annotations, the description covers the core return behavior and the quota side effect. It does not mention error cases like a missing key, but that gap is minor for a tool of this simplicity.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters' meaning and constraints. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, which is acceptable given the complete schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource: 'Fetch one memory by key.' The word 'one' distinguishes it from list-style tools like continental_memories, and 'by key' makes the lookup mechanism clear. It is precise and immediately understandable.
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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single stored memory when you already know its key, and the warning that it 'counts toward your hourly read cap' provides important context for when to use it sparingly. It does not explicitly name alternatives 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.