Retrieve a stored long-term memory by ID, including its metadata and relationships, to inspect or use it in an AI agent's context.
One memory in full, with its metadata and graph.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload includes metadata and the graph, which tells the agent the response is heavier than a brief lookup, but it says nothing about permissions, missing-id behavior, or traversal cost.
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?
A single short fragment with no filler, and the key scope word ('One') is front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment lacking a verb, which slightly undercuts readability but not efficiency.
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 values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter lookup. However, with 0% schema coverage on the id and no usage routing among seven siblings, the definition is only minimally complete.
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 0% and the single 'id' parameter carries no description in the schema. The description only implies 'one memory' is identified by something; it never states the identifier format (UUID, slug, composite) or whether a missing id errors or returns null.
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 phrase 'One memory in full, with its metadata and graph' names a specific resource and scope (a single memory), which distinguishes it from list/brief siblings by implication. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary with memory_list or memory_recall rather than being told.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the seven sibling tools. The agent is left to guess that this is the 'fetch by id' path rather than a search path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.