Search all memory layers—L3, L4, wiki, and graph—with hybrid retrieval and context construction to answer queries across user or agent memory.
Universal Primitive: Hybrid search across ALL layers (L3, L4, Wiki, Graph) with context construction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layer | No | user | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| intent | No | balanced | |
| user_id | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'context construction', hinting at a return behavior beyond raw search, but does not detail what context is built, pagination, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but shallow.
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?
It is a single sentence, so it is concise. However, the front-loaded 'Universal Primitive:' label is jargon that doesn't help an agent, and the rest is dense with undefined layer names. Structure is compact but not optimally front-loaded with useful information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and a description that doesn't clarify any parameter or the layer mapping, an agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool correctly. The definition is materially incomplete for its complexity.
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% for 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention any parameter—not query, limit, intent, user_id, nor the layer enum (user/agent). 'Across ALL layers (L3, L4, Wiki, Graph)' even conflicts with the schema's layer values, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
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 states a verb and resource: 'Hybrid search' and 'context construction'. However, 'Universal Primitive' and layer names like 'L3, L4' are internal jargon that an agent may not understand, and it does not differentiate clearly from siblings like memory_hook or think. The core purpose is identifiable but vague.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as think, memory_hook, or wake_up. The description provides no context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.