Skip to main content
Glama
Lyellr88

marm-memory

by Lyellr88

marm_smart_recall

Find stored memories using semantic search or keyword matching. Returns ranked results with similarity scores and optional graph context.

Instructions

🧠 Recall memories by semantic similarity or keyword match.

Searches stored memories for the most relevant matches to `query`.
Returns a ranked list of results with similarity scores. When a compatible
concept graph exists, the response also includes bounded relationship and
linked-code context without changing memory ranking.

Parameters:
- query: natural language search term or phrase
- session_name: limit search to a specific session (default searches active session)
- limit: maximum number of results to return (default 5)
- search_all: if True, search across all sessions instead of just the active one
- include_logs: if True, include log entries alongside memory results
- detail: controls how much content is returned per result
    1 = summary only (~200 chars)
    2 = extended context (~500 chars)
    3 = full content
- exact_mode: retrieval lane to use
    'auto'     = automatically switch to exact/lexical for syntax-heavy queries
                 (config keys, file paths, CLI commands, API names, code snippets)
    'exact'    = always use deterministic FTS/BM25, no semantic re-ranking
    'semantic' = always use vector similarity regardless of query shape
- project: filter results to a specific project (e.g. "marm-memory"); omit to search all
- platform: filter results to a specific platform (e.g. "claude-code", "cursor"); omit to search all

Returns: status, ranked results, graph_context, and results_count

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
detailNo
projectNo
platformNo
exact_modeNoauto
search_allNo
include_logsNo
session_nameNodefault
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-like behavior (search, return ranked results, graph context) but omits details like error handling, performance characteristics, or any destructive potential. Adequate but not thorough.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Well-structured with a concise header, summary paragraph, and clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Uses formatting (emojis, line breaks) for readability.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return fields (status, ranked results, graph_context, results_count). Missing details on result structure or graph_context, but largely complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters, including enumeration for 'exact_mode' and implications for 'detail' levels. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states the tool recalls memories by semantic similarity or keyword match, with a clear verb (searches/recalls) and resource (memories). It distinguishes from siblings like marm_concept_recall by mentioning similarity scores and graph context, but does not explicitly compare.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It describes what it does but does not state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives for specific use cases like exact matching or code lookup.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Lyellr88/marm-memory'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server