Search memories using semantic similarity, optionally filtered by tags or memory type.
Semantic search with optional tag and memory-type pre-filters. Prefer over dakera_recall when results must be constrained by tag or type alongside the semantic match.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | Filter by tags | |
| query | Yes | Search query text | |
| top_k | No | Number of results | |
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| memory_type | No | Filter by memory type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.12v0.10.11v0.10.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention permissions or rate limits. The description is honest but lacks explicit transparency about its non-destructive nature.
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, concise sentence that packs the core function and the key usage guidance. Every word is necessary, and it is well-structured for quick reading.
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 search tool with two optional filters, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It does not specify the return format, but since no output schema is defined and the tool is inherently a search, the missing information is not critical. The description could be slightly richer by mentioning the nature of results, but it is overall complete enough.
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?
The input schema already has descriptions for 4 of 5 parameters (80% coverage), which is high, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description text merely echoes the 'tag' and 'memory type' filters without adding further meaning, and it does not clarify the purpose of agent_id beyond being required.
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 clearly states the tool performs semantic search with optional filters for tags and memory type. It also contrasts with the sibling tool dakera_recall, providing a specific use case, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly says 'Prefer over dakera_recall when results must be constrained by tag or type alongside the semantic match,' giving direct guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. This tells the agent exactly the conditions favoring this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.