Memwyre

search_by_date

Find memories in Memwyre created within a specific date range.
Args:
    start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
    end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format (optional, defaults to end of start_date).
    workspace_name: Optional name of the workspace directory. Pass this so that items are filtered by this project workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	No
`start_date`	Yes
`workspace_name`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does convey a read-only lookup by creation date plus optional workspace filtering. It does not discuss edge behavior such as date boundary inclusivity, timezone interpretation, or result ordering, but those are not critical for a basic call.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose before parameter details. Every line adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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?

All parameters are fully documented, and an output schema exists, so the agent can invoke the tool and interpret results. The main missing piece is routing guidance among the many sibling search/list tools, but that is more a usage gap than an invocation-completeness gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has zero description coverage, and the description compensates fully: it provides the YYYY-MM-DD format for start_date, default behavior for end_date, and the purpose of workspace_name for filtering. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific operation and resource: finding memories in Memwyre filtered by creation date, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_memories and search_memwyre. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast those siblings; the distinction is carried by the date-range phrasing.

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 is provided on when to prefer this tool over search_memwyre or list_memories, and no exclusions are stated. The only usage cue is implied by the description and the optional workspace_name filtering note.

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

All Memwyre tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct operations such as semantic search, date search, inbox approval/discard, and tag listing. The main ambiguity is between save_memory and upsert_memory, both of which can create memories with similar arguments; get_memory/get_document and delete_memory/discard_memory are also distinguishable mainly by ID prefix or inbox state.

Naming Consistency4/5

The names are consistently lowercase snake_case and verb-first, which makes the set fairly predictable. Minor deviations include search_by_date breaking the verb_noun pattern, get_inbox/get_all_tags acting as list operations while list_memories uses 'list', and upsert_memory being an unusual verb.

Tool Count5/5

At 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a memory/document vault: create, upsert, update, retrieve, list, semantic and date search, tags, and inbox workflow are all represented without excessive granularity or redundant filler.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core memory lifecycle well, including save, upsert, update, get, search, list, delete, and inbox approval/discard. Minor gaps remain: update_memory only accepts mem_ IDs, so documents found via search have no document-specific update path, and workspace management is only handled through optional name strings.

Resources

Need Help?