mcp-agent-hub

recall

Retrieve entries from a shared blackboard by exact key, key prefix, or tag to access stored coordination data for agent workflows.

Instructions

读取共享黑板。可按精确 key、key 前缀或 tag 查询。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	No
`tag`	No
`limit`	No
`prefix`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it does establish that this is a read operation, which is the key behavioral signal. However, it says nothing about ordering, empty-result behavior, or how 'limit' caps results, leaving real gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Slight under-specification rather than verbosity, so it earns high marks for structure without being maximal.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a 4-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free tool, the description should resolve parameter precedence and limit semantics to be fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% with four parameters, so the description must compensate: it does clarify what key, prefix, and tag mean as query modes, which is genuinely useful. But 'limit' is never mentioned and the interaction/priority among key, prefix, and tag is left unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (共享黑板/shared blackboard), plus the three supported query modes (exact key, key prefix, tag). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side sibling 'remember', though it never names that counterpart 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?

The three query modes imply usage ('query by exact key, prefix, or tag'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement about whether the modes combine (AND/OR), and no routing to alternatives such as a room/task listing tool for broader discovery.

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