Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
deep-agentic-core-mcp

deep-agentic-core-mcp

Official
by DeepAgentLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Saved reports

core.report_recall
Read-only

Retrieve saved artifacts and investigation history with source-cited notes for a specific session, enabling traceable recall of prior findings.

Instructions

Browse saved artifacts and history with source-cited investigation notes.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "core.report_recall"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's main added value is the phrase "source-cited investigation notes", which hints at output content. It says nothing about what "history" covers, whether results are scoped/filtered, or how much is returned, leaving behavior largely undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler and no buried lead. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the vagueness noted elsewhere rather than being a virtue on its own.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should still clarify what is returned and what the optional session_id does. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot predict the result set before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter session_id is completely unmentioned in the description. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it provides no meaning for session_id, such as whether it scopes the browse to one session or whether omitting it lists everything.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a verb ("Browse") and a resource ("saved artifacts and history"), but the resource does not match the tool name/title ("report_recall" / "Saved reports"). An agent cannot confidently tell whether this returns saved reports or something broader, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like lens.report_summary or core.export_report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite a crowded sibling set of report/analysis tools. The agent must infer that this is a retrieval tool for previously saved output.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools