Search shared long-term memory by keyword to find stored graph nodes; explicit graph reads can be large, so use bounded project-aware retrieval for routine lookups.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, and the description adds two traits not in structured data: it is a compatibility shim over the v2 SQLite store, and results may be large. It does not describe return shape or pagination, but for a read-only compat alias the added context is substantive.
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 sentences, no repetition, and the compatibility caveat precedes the routing advice. The phrase 'Explicit graph reads' has a slightly unclear referent, but nothing is wasted.
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 an undocumented lone parameter, the description should explain what a node match is and roughly what comes back. It only warns that results may be large, which does not let an agent predict or handle the response.
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?
There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — yet it never mentions `query`, what it matches against, or whether it is a name, full-text, or fuzzy search. This is the biggest gap in an otherwise reasonable definition.
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 frames the tool as a 'Compatibility tool backed by the same v2 SQLite store' and hints at graph reads, but never states the actual operation (searching nodes) or what the query matches. An agent can infer it is a legacy alias for graph node retrieval, but the verb+resource pairing is never made explicit.
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?
'prefer search_memories for bounded project-aware retrieval' explicitly names the sibling and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs. It stops short of saying when this tool is the right choice (only for legacy compatibility?), leaving that implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.