Read one memory row owned by this API key.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"environmentId": "<environmentId>",
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "veya_read_memory"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| environmentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds that the row must be owned by the API key (an authorization/scoping constraint), but says nothing about return format, error behavior, or permission requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Every word contributes to scope and purpose.
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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too terse. It omits parameter semantics and behavioral details an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 0% across three parameters. The description hints that 'id' identifies the memory row and 'apiKey' is the owner key, but leaves 'environmentId' entirely unexplained and provides no format or type semantics for 'id'. It does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 ('Read'), resource ('memory row'), cardinality ('one'), and ownership scope ('owned by this API key'). This implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like veya_list_api_memory (list), veya_store_memory (write), and veya_invalidate_memory (delete), though none are named.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites beyond the ownership constraint. An agent must infer that this is the tool for fetching a single memory row by ID rather than listing or writing.
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.