Search persistent AI memory semantically to retrieve relevant past interaction context across sessions, ranked by recency and filterable by room, wing, or result count.
Semantic search across the château. Returns ranked results with recency weighting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| room | No | ||
| wing | No | ||
| query | Yes | Search query | |
| no_decay | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, this text must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are ranked and recency-weighted, which hints at the no_decay parameter's effect, but says nothing about read-only safety, result limits, pagination, or whether searches span all rooms/wings by default.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of padding. If anything it is under-specified rather than verbose, so brevity here is not a virtue the description fully earns.
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?
A five-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage needs the description to explain scoping (room/wing), result count (n), and decay behavior. It covers only the last of these obliquely, leaving the agent guessing about invocation semantics.
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 only 20% — just `query` is documented — and the description adds no meaning for `n`, `room`, `wing`, or `no_decay`. The single mention of 'recency weighting' indirectly explains what no_decay toggles, but that is thin compensation for four undocumented parameters.
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?
Identifies a verb (semantic search) and a resource (the château), so the basic operation is clear. However, 'château' is unexplained jargon and the description does not distinguish this from siblings like engram_kg_query or engram_history, which also retrieve stored knowledge.
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 mention of alternatives (e.g., kg_query for structured lookups vs. this for fuzzy recall), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.