memkin

Recall Memory (Synthesized)

recall

Obtain a synthesized, cited summary about an entity, query, or time window, including gap flags.

Instructions

recall

Recall a synthesized, cited summary about an entity, query, or time window.

When to use: a quick composed recall with citations and gap flags. When NOT to use: raw snippets; use query/search. Returns: a SynthesisResult (answer + citations + gaps). On error: provide at least one of entity, query, or time.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "recall"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`time`	No	Time window (ISO dates).
`query`	No	Free-text semantic query.
`entity`	No	Anchor entity slug, e.g. `people/zhang-san`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (SynthesisResult with answer, citations, gaps) and error handling (at least one parameter required). It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety guarantees. Still, it provides substantial 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five clearly separated sections (title, description, usage, returns, error) with no redundant information. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter constraints, output format, error behavior, and sibling differentiation. An agent can confidently use this tool without additional context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the constraint 'provide at least one of entity, query, or time', which is not in the schema. This compensates for the lack of enum or additional constraints.

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?

The description clearly states the tool recalls a synthesized, cited summary for an entity, query, or time window. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings by noting it provides composed recall with citations vs raw snippets from query/search.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with specific alternative tool names (query, search). This is textbook perfect guidance, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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