Search retained conversation summaries and raw messages to recover prior context, using lexical full-text search with literal substring fallback for exact matches.
Lexical FTS5 recall with literal substring fallback across retained summaries and raw messages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default and maximum 5). | |
| query | Yes | What are you trying to remember? |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the lexical FTS5 search behavior, literal substring fallback, and searchable corpus, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe result ordering, output shape, or limitations.
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?
The definition is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the retrieval mechanism, though the dense technical phrasing could be slightly clearer for an agent.
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?
For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool with fully documented schema fields, the description covers the search mechanism and corpus. However, it omits return format, result ordering, and sibling differentiation, which are relevant because no output schema or annotations are provided.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both query and limit. The description adds corpus context but no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific retrieval mechanism and corpus: lexical FTS5 recall with substring fallback across retained summaries and raw messages. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as lcm_grep or lcm_recent.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance about when to use this tool rather than lcm_grep, lcm_recent, lcm_expand, or lcm_describe. The query parameter's text hints at remembering, but the description itself leaves usage selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.