Retrieve a VRCX avatar memo by providing the avatar ID. Access read-only notes to review saved information about any VRChat avatar.
Get a VRCX avatar memo by avatarId (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| avatarId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memo | Yes | ||
| avatarId | Yes | ||
| editedAt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13Output schema / properties / editedAt / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / editedAt / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / memo / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Output schema / properties / memo / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'read-only' phrase matches the readOnlyHint annotation but adds no behavioral detail beyond it. It does not disclose missing-memo behavior or authentication needs, though the annotation already covers the main safety trait.
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?
One sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the parameter. Every element earns 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?
For a simple read-only lookup with one required parameter, an output schema, and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description contains everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. Missing details like memo contents are covered by the output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'by avatarId' is the only explanation of the parameter's role: it is the identifier of the avatar whose memo is fetched. It could add format guidance like an 'avtr_' prefix, but the purpose of the sole required parameter is clear.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('VRCX avatar memo'), and the lookup key ('avatarId'), making the action unambiguous. The 'avatar' qualifier also distinguishes it from sibling tools like vrcx_memos_user_get and vrcx_memos_world_get.
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?
The resource name 'avatar memo' gives clear context for when to call this tool, and the sibling names imply the alternatives for user/world memos. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state exclusions, but for a simple getter the implied routing is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.