Memwyre

search_memwyre

The PRIMARY tool for searching the user's "Memwyre". Use this to retrieve relevant context, notes, code snippets, or past conversations from the Memwyre Vault.
ALWAYS use this before answering questions that might require personal context or project knowledge.
Results include item IDs (e.g. `[ID: mem_123]` or `[ID: doc_45]`). You can pass these IDs to `get_memory` to read full unchunked text, or to `update_memory` / `delete_memory`.
Args:
    query: The semantic search query (e.g., "python fastapi project structure", "notes on meeting with Bob", or "auth system specs").
    purpose: Optional hint for context formatting ("general", "code", "summary").
    workspace_name: Optional name of the workspace directory. Pass this so that search is scoped strictly to this project workspace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`query`	Yes
`purpose`	No	general
`workspace_name`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the semantic nature of search, optional workspace scoping, and that results include item IDs that can be passed to get_memory/update_memory/delete_memory. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior or result limits, but 'retrieve' implies non-mutation.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance before the args block. It is slightly repetitive ('PRIMARY', 'ALWAYS use this', 'retrieve...') but each sentence contributes functional value, so only mildly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a primary search tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context to select and call it correctly: what to search, how to scope, what IDs look like, and what tools consume them. No critical gap is evident.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: query with concrete examples, purpose with allowed hint values, and workspace_name with scoping semantics. This goes well beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as 'The PRIMARY tool for searching the user's Memwyre' and enumerates the retrievable content types (context, notes, code snippets, past conversations). The 'semantic search query' phrasing distinguishes it from date-oriented siblings like search_by_date.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides a strong when-to-use directive ('ALWAYS use this before answering questions that might require personal context or project knowledge') and explains downstream ID usage. No explicit when-not-to-use alternatives are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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?