baton_memory_get
API key로 선택한 기억 본문을 복호화한다.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| memory_id | Yes |
baton
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'decrypt' implying a read operation, but does not mention potential errors, side effects, or whether it is read-only. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it is so brief that it lacks structure and could benefit from additional context while remaining concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no description of return values or error conditions. For a decrypt operation, more detail on output format and potential failures is expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the parameters beyond their names. It does not clarify what 'api_key' or 'memory_id' represent or how they are used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action: decrypt (복호화) the memory body (기억 본문) using an API key. It distinguishes from sibling tools like baton_memory_delete, baton_memory_put, and baton_memory_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for different memory operations, but the description does not provide any context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but some potential overlaps exist (e.g., baton_revoke, baton_close_room, baton_leave). The complex domain is well-differentiated overall.
Naming Consistency3/5
The baton_ and spider_ prefixes provide consistency, but within baton_ there is a mix of verb-only, noun, and verb_noun patterns (e.g., baton_approve vs baton_account). Not fully predictable.
Tool Count2/5
With 45 tools, the server is very large and may overwhelm agents. While the domain is complex, many tools could potentially be consolidated, making the count excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers account, room, handoff, verification, cost, memory, hub, task, and spider domains thoroughly. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to list rooms), but core workflows are well-supported.