ContextForge MCP

memory_check_freshness

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect stale project memories linked to git-tracked code by comparing saved commit SHAs with current HEAD using a local git diff, then review and refresh up to three affected memories.

Instructions

Check whether memories linked to git-tracked code (via related_paths on memory_ingest) are stale because the underlying code changed since they were saved. Compares each candidate's saved commit SHA against the current HEAD with a local git diff — no data leaves your machine for the diff itself. Returns up to 3 memories whose related files changed, so you can review and refresh them. Call this periodically or when you suspect saved context might be out of date.

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": "memory_check_freshness"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`space_id`	No	Space UUID (uses default if not specified)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.13.3Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds specific behavioral details: it uses a local git diff, no data leaves the machine, and returns up to 3 stale memories. This context enhances understanding beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains mechanism and privacy, third gives usage advice. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, privacy, return value (up to 3 items), and usage frequency. The single optional parameter is well-documented in the schema. No gaps identified.

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?

With only one optional parameter (space_id) and 100% schema coverage, the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool checks if memories linked to git-tracked code are stale by comparing commit SHAs, using a specific verb ('check') and resource ('freshness of memories'). It distinguishes from siblings like memory_ingest and memory_query by its unique caching context.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description advises calling 'periodically or when you suspect saved context might be out of date,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for general use.

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

Deploy Server