Explain any stored memory record by viewing its metadata, payload, and relations, making it easy to understand context and connections.
Explain a memory record, including meta, payload, and relations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| entity | No | ||
| property | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Explain' strongly implies a read-only operation, and 'including meta, payload, and relations' gives some insight into what the explanation contains. However, it does not explicitly confirm that no memory mutations occur or describe any side effects.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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?
Given no annotations, zero schema descriptions, and multiple look-up-like sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to identify a memory record, what an 'explain' result looks like beyond three fields, or when this tool is preferable to memory_inspect, memory_probe, or memory_recall.
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%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters. It does not explain how 'id', 'entity', and 'property' relate to selecting a memory record, whether they are alternatives or combined, or why all are optional. The parameter names are self-descriptive but the selection semantics are ambiguous.
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 and resource: 'Explain a memory record' and names the included aspects ('meta, payload, and relations'). It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like memory_inspect or memory_probe.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state whether to use it for debugging, for understanding stored relations, or as a read-only diagnostic. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.