Skip to main content
Glama
EmjayAhn

Pensieve MCP Server

by EmjayAhn

search_conversations

Search through conversation history to find specific discussions or topics across AI platforms. Enter keywords to retrieve relevant past conversations for reference or continuation.

Instructions

대화 내용을 검색합니다

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes검색할 텍스트
limitNo최대 결과 수 (기본값: 20)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for search_conversations which scans JSON files in the storage directory for the query string.
    def search_conversations(query: str, limit: int = 20) -> List[Dict[str, Any]]:
        """대화 내용 검색"""
        results = []
        query_lower = query.lower()
        
        for file_path in STORAGE_DIR.glob("*.json"):
            try:
                with open(file_path, 'r', encoding='utf-8') as f:
                    data = json.load(f)
                    
                    # 메시지 내용에서 검색
                    for message in data.get("messages", []):
                        content = message.get("content", "").lower()
                        if query_lower in content:
                            results.append({
                                "id": data["id"],
                                "metadata": data.get("metadata", {}),
                                "created_at": data.get("created_at"),
                                "matched_message": message,
                                "message_count": len(data.get("messages", []))
                            })
                            break
  • MCP Tool registration for search_conversations, including its description and input schema.
    Tool(
        name="search_conversations",
        description="대화 내용을 검색합니다",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "query": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "검색할 텍스트"
                },
                "limit": {
                    "type": "integer",
                    "description": "최대 결과 수 (기본값: 20)",
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (search) without mentioning permissions, rate limits, response format, pagination, or whether it's read-only. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean with zero waste. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it lacks necessary details, so while it's structurally simple, it doesn't fully earn its place by providing adequate information.

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?

Given the complexity of a search operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with two parameters and no structured support, this minimal description fails to provide enough context for effective use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the two parameters (query and limit). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax examples or limit constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 '대화 내용을 검색합니다' (Search conversation content) states a clear verb (search) and resource (conversation content), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_conversations'. It doesn't specify what kind of conversations or what 'content' includes beyond the basic purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_conversations' or 'load_conversation'. The description implies searching within content, but it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EmjayAhn/pensieve-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server