Returns a digest of key memories—user profile, preferences, active projects, and decisions—so an AI agent avoids re-asking known details when the mem_* tools are unavailable.
(Engram fallback.) Call ONCE at the start of a task when the mem_* tools are not available. Returns a digest of key memories (user profile, preferences, active projects, decisions) so you do not re-ask what is already known.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_items | No | Default 30 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses read-like digest behavior, the once-per-task constraint, and the purpose of avoiding redundant questions, but it omits permissions, failure or empty-result behavior, and how fresh or authoritative the memories are.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the fallback status and call timing. Every clause contributes useful information with no waste.
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 simple one-parameter fallback tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers when to call it and what categories of memory are returned. Minor gaps remain around the mem_* naming mismatch and empty-result behavior, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 single optional max_items parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including its default. The description adds no further meaning about how the item limit affects the digest, so the schema alone does the work.
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 states a specific action and resource: returns a digest of key memories, listing categories such as user profile, preferences, active projects, and decisions. It also distinguishes itself as a fallback when mem_* tools are unavailable, though the sibling names here are memory_*, creating slight ambiguity about exact routing.
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?
It gives clear timing and a condition: call ONCE at the start of a task when mem_* tools are not available. It does not name individual alternatives or explain what to do if only some memory tools are available, but the core when-to-use guidance is explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.