cortex_recallRecalls stored memories from the Cortex semantic memory service, retrieving relevant past information to support context-aware responses.
Narrative synthesis of what the user's memory knows about a topic, with the current state and what was superseded. Use it for questions like 'what do you know about X' or 'what is the current state of X'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Topic or question |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it synthesizes memory narratively, includes both current and superseded states. This goes beyond the annotations by revealing what kind of output to expect.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the tool's core behavior, and the second provides concrete invocation examples. Everything earns its place.
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 single-parameter, annotation-rich tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns conceptually, and when to use it. It could add a note about what happens when the memory has no knowledge of the topic, but this is a minor gap given the openWorldHint annotation.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, which already documents it as 'Topic or question'. The description reinforces this with example questions but does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific verb ('Recall') and resource ('what the user's memory knows about a topic'), and further clarifies the output is a 'narrative synthesis' that includes current state and superseded information. This differentiates it from siblings like cortex_forget or cortex_write, even without naming them.
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 gives explicit usage triggers: questions like 'what do you know about X' or 'what is the current state of X'. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as search or fetch, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.