Retrieve a saved VRCX memo for any VRChat user by their userId. Use this read-only tool to access your personal notes and reminders about a specific user.
Get a VRCX user memo by userId (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memo | Yes | ||
| userId | 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 description repeats the readOnlyHint annotation ('read-only') but adds no behavioral context beyond it, such as local data source behavior, missing-memo handling, or access requirements. With the annotation already covering safety, the description contributes little extra transparency.
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 a single sentence that states the operation, target resource, lookup key, and read-only nature with no filler. All essential information is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. Return-value details are already handled 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly identifying userId as the lookup key for the memo. For a single simple string parameter, this is sufficient to convey the parameter's role.
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'), names the exact resource ('VRCX user memo'), and specifies the lookup key ('by userId'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling memo tools like vrcx_memos_world_get and vrcx_memos_avatar_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 description clearly indicates this tool is for user-scoped memos, so an agent can select it over the world/avatar memo variants. It does not explicitly state exclusions, but the user/world/avatar distinction is apparent from the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.