lflabs-memory

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

recall_full

Retrieve a full saved memory by ID, one 20,000-character page at a time, to access stored text beyond shortened recall results.

Instructions

One memory in full, by the id recall gave, 20000 characters a page.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "recall_full"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`page`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.7Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the important trait that content is paged at 20000 characters and that 'page' controls which slice you get. It says nothing about read-only safety, invalid/expired ids, or how many pages to expect, so the disclosure is partial for an annotation-free tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compressed sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and its scope before the paging constraint. It is terse to the point of being slightly fragmented, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies what an agent needs: where the id comes from and how paging works. Error behavior and end-of-content handling are the only real omissions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters are bare integer titles, so the description must compensate — and it largely does: 'id' is defined by provenance ('the id recall gave') and 'page' is defined by its unit ('20000 characters a page'). Only the paging interaction (when to stop, whether page 1 is default) is left implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('one memory in full') and resource, and ties it to the id 'recall gave', which implicitly distinguishes it from the list-style 'recall' sibling. An agent can tell this is the full-content fetch keyed by a known id, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: you use this once you hold an id from recall and want the complete record. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use search_chats or recent when you don't already have an id) and no mention of what happens after the final page.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server