Clarik Mcp Server

clarik_memory_recall

Recall relevant memories ranked by relevance, recency, and importance for any query. Get the most pertinent information from stored memory.

Instructions

Retrieve relevant memories ranked by relevance, recency, and importance for the current query.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "clarik_memory_recall"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	The query to find relevant memories for
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of memories to return (default: 10)
`projectPath`	No	Project root path for isolation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions ranking but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or if any side effects occur (e.g., memory access logging).

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?

A single, well-formed sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and key behavioral aspects (ranking) without extraneous information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description does not specify the output format or structure, which is missing given no output schema. It adequately covers input and behavior but lacks return value details.

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

Parameters4/5

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

All three parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds context about ranking criteria (not in schema), enhancing understanding beyond parameters alone.

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 (retrieve memories) and specifies ranking criteria (relevance, recency, importance), distinguishing it from other memory tools like list or learn.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving relevant memories but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like clarik_memory_list (which lists all memories) or clarik_memory_archive, leaving an agent to infer when to use this tool over others.

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