Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

memory_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read agent memory. action: get | search (consolidated surface — same handlers as the legacy tools) Required per action — get: source | search: query.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo[get] Item ID returned by memory_search
hopNo[search] Expand results by following [[wikilinks]] N hops from keyword hits (vault only). Scores decay 0.5 per hop. Default 0 (off).
modeNo[search] keyword (default) or latest_state
pathNo[get] vault_file only: file path inside the vault (e.g. 'global/MEMORY.md')
limitNo[search] Max results (default 10, max 20)
queryNo[search] Search text (e.g. 'render deploy key', 'ainote jwt'). May be blank only in latest_state mode.
actionYeswhich operation to run
sourceNo[get] Which store the item lives in (use the `source` field from memory_search results)
sourcesNo[search] Memory stores to search. Default: both.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / hop
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "[search] Expand results by following [[wikilinks]] N hops from keyword hits (vault only). Scores decay 0.5 per hop. Default 0 (off).",
+  "maximum": 2,
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'consolidated surface — same handlers as legacy tools' context, which is minor implementation detail, but it does not disclose behaviors like return format or pagination. No contradictions exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides the key operational constraints, earning high marks for conciseness.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters and rich schema descriptions, and annotations cover safety. The description fills in per-action requirements and notes legacy handler equivalence. However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values, which is a minor gap for a read/search tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, providing detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying per-action requirements (get requires source, search requires query) and noting consolidated handlers, which is not fully evident from the schema's generic 'action' description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads agent memory and lists the two actions (get/search), giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools like handoff_read or graph_read, though 'memory' is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states required parameters per action ('get: source | search: query'), which is useful operational guidance. But it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions, so usage context is only implied.

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

All ainote toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources