Skip to main content
Glama
MerakOsiris

MemoryGuard

by MerakOsiris
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memoryguard_memory_search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search governed memories by text and lifecycle status to locate relevant entries without knowing the exact memory ID. Filter by states such as active, conflicted, or quarantined.

Instructions

Use when finding governed memories by text and lifecycle status. Do not use when an exact memory_id is known; use memoryguard_memory_read instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNomaximum results to return (default: 5 for conversation recall)
queryNosearch query
statusNolifecycle status filter; defaults to active
agent_instance_idNooptional identity consistency check; trusted MCP environment is authoritative

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.7.12
    • removedInput schema / properties / kind
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "filter by kind: preference|fact|project|procedure|episode|correction",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / semantic
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "optional semantic recall mode (default: off)",
-  "enum": [
-    "off",
-    "heuristic",
-    "model"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"filter by status: active (default)|low_confidence|shadowed|conflicted|quarantined|deleted"New value: +"lifecycle status filter; defaults to active"
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "active",
+  "low_confidence",
+  "shadowed",
+  "conflicted",
+  "quarantined",
+  "deleted"
+]
  2. First observedv0.7.8

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose, such as the governance aspect of memories, but does not describe return format, pagination, or other runtime behaviors. Given annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary use case and followed by an exclusion with a clear alternative. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail; every word serves a purpose.

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?

For a search tool with all parameters optional and fully described in the schema, the description adequately covers the core purpose and usage guidance. It does not explain the return format, but this is common for search tools and the schema covers parameter semantics. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's clarity on when to use the tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (limit, query, status, agent_instance_id) with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add any parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 action (finding) and resource (governed memories) with specific criteria (text and lifecycle status). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling memoryguard_memory_read by noting it should not be used when an exact memory_id is known, which prevents confusion between search and direct read operations.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use (finding memories by text and status) and when-not-to-use (exact memory_id known) conditions, and names the alternative tool to use instead. This leaves no ambiguity for the agent in selecting the correct tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools