Alias for memory_procedure_get.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Playbook name | |
| version | No | Specific version | |
| expand_skills | No | Inline composed skills |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ]
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / x-fastmcp-wrap-resultRemoved value: -trueDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it discloses nothing beyond being an alias. No mention of side effects, read/write characteristics, or any other behavioral traits.
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 extremely short, but that conciseness comes at the cost of any useful information. It is not structured or front-loaded with actionable details; it is a single placeholder sentence that fails to earn its place.
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?
Even with an output schema present, the description is entirely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, or what the agent can expect. For a tool with this level of complexity, it is completely 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 100%, so the input schema thoroughly documents all three parameters and their types/defaults. The description adds no extra meaning, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema already covers the parameters fully.
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 only states that it is an alias for memory_procedure_get, without any explanation of what the tool actually does. It fails to identify the verb, resource, or functionality, making it impossible for an agent to understand the tool's purpose without looking up the referenced tool.
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 any alternative, nor any mention of scenarios where it should be preferred or avoided. The description offers no usage context whatsoever.
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.