Load stored knowledge by unique key to restore context and continue work. Retrieve exact memory entries when needed.
Load stored knowledge.
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_load"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Identifier key (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not explain what happens when loading (e.g., return format, behavior when key is missing or empty, whether it accesses a local store). This is a critical transparency gap.
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?
The description is only three words, which is too terse. It under-specifies the tool rather than being efficiently concise, leaving out essential information like key usage and return behavior.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide sufficient context for understanding what this tool does. It fails to explain the type of data stored, how the key is used, or what a successful load returns. This is fundamentally incomplete even for a simple memory operation.
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 for the single parameter 'key' is 100% (it has a description: 'Identifier key (optional)'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already covers the basic meaning. However, the schema description is minimal and does not clarify what 'stored knowledge' the key references.
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 description states a verb ('Load') and a resource ('stored knowledge'), but it is extremely generic and does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_save or cloud_memory_load. It fails to mention the optional key parameter or what kind of memory is loaded, making the purpose ambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use memory_load versus alternatives such as memory_save, cloud_memory_load, or read_file. The description provides no context for selecting 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.