Fetch specific memory nodes by name from the shared SQLite memory store for explicit graph reads; use bounded search instead for project-aware retrieval when reads may be large.
Compatibility tool backed by the same v2 SQLite store. Explicit graph reads may be large; prefer search_memories for bounded project-aware retrieval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds a useful performance warning ("may be large") and storage backing, but does not disclose what happens to names that don't exist, whether results preserve input order, or any truncation behavior — relevant here since the schema caps names at 100 items.
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?
It is short (two sentences) but front-loads the vague "Compatibility tool" rather than the operation, and "backed by the same v2 SQLite store" consumes a clause without helping an agent decide to call it.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description must explain what a call returns and what input shape is expected; it does neither, leaving an agent unable to predict results or name format beyond the raw array-of-strings schema.
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 sole parameter, "names", has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it says nothing about what a name is (entity name, node ID, fully-qualified identifier) or how matching behaves. With one undocumented parameter and no compensating prose, this falls below baseline.
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 calls itself a "Compatibility tool" and alludes to "explicit graph reads," but never states plainly that it retrieves/fetches nodes by name, nor how it differs from search_nodes or read_graph. The word "open" in the name is never expanded on, so an agent must infer the primary verb+resource from structured fields alone.
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 explicitly discourages the tool for large explicit graph reads and names the alternative: "prefer search_memories for bounded project-aware retrieval." That is a concrete when-not condition plus the replacement, though it never states the positive case for using open_nodes itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.