Retrieve a single memory by ID with full metadata to support precise recall, inspection, and verification.
Fetch one memory by id, with full metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that retrieval returns 'full metadata', which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about error behavior, whether missing ids raise or return empty, permissions, or rate limits. For a read tool this is partially adequate but thin.
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 tight sentence with no waste, and the identifying action and scope are front-loaded.
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-value explanation is not required. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves the agent without when-to-use routing or id-format guidance; it is minimal but not incorrect.
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 'memory_id' is undocumented in the schema. The description names the lookup key ('by id') implying it must be an exact/memory id, but adds no format or source detail, so it only minimally compensates for the coverage gap. With 1 parameter the baseline is a 3.
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 (Fetch) and resource (memory) with scope qualifier 'by id' and 'full metadata'. This distinguishes it from search_memories and semantic_search, which retrieve memories by query rather than by exact id, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.
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 use this vs the sibling retrieval tools. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is the right choice when it has an id versus needing to search; nothing addresses prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.