memory_getRetrieve a single stored memory by its record ID to recall a specific decision, preference, or detail from the local Compartment vault.
Fetch one memory by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| record_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing behavioral: no mention of what happens when the id is unknown, whether it errors or returns empty, or any namespace scoping. For a lookup tool the error path is the main thing an agent needs and it is absent.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is tight, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. Still, a 1-param tool with 0% schema coverage leaves the id's origin and the not-found behavior undocumented, which is the minimum an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is documented nowhere. 'By id' only weakly clarifies that record_id is a memory identifier rather than, say, a namespace or link id — the description does not say where the id comes from or its expected form.
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?
States a specific verb and resource with scope: fetch one memory by id. This implicitly distinguishes it from list-style siblings like memory_search or memory_recent, but no sibling is named explicitly to reinforce the distinction.
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?
No guidance on when to pick this over memory_search or memory_recent, and no statement of the prerequisite that the caller must already hold a record_id. The only hint is 'by id', which leaves the agent to infer the lookup workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.