memory_getRetrieve a full memory record by its ID, including related links and backlinks, after a search to get complete details instead of a snippet.
Fetch one memory by id with its related links and backlinks (memories that point at it). Use after memory_search when you need the full statement, not the snippet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Memory id — returns the memory with related links and backlinks |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the memory plus related links and backlinks, and implies a read-only operation via 'Fetch'. However, it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, authentication requirements, or error behavior (e.g., if the id does not exist). It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and return content, followed by a targeted usage note. No extraneous information; each sentence contributes meaningfully.
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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, return contents, and a usage trigger. It is somewhat incomplete regarding error cases or side-effect confirmation, but these are minimal for a 'get' operation. Overall it provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 schema already describes the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage ('Memory id — returns the memory with related links and backlinks'). The description does not add new parameter-level meaning; it repeats the same return behavior. Baseline 3 applies under high schema coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch', names the resource ('one memory by id'), and specifies the return content ('related links and backlinks'). It also distinguishes from memory_search by noting it returns the full statement rather than a snippet, making the tool's role clear relative to siblings.
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 'Use after memory_search when you need the full statement, not the snippet,' which names the relevant alternative and the condition for using this tool. This is clear when-to-use guidance, and it also implies when not to use it (when a snippet suffices).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.