Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-memory-graph

mcp-memory-graph

by YonasValentin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

core_memory_get

Read-only

Read the pinned core memory for a scope and namespace to get the agent's always-in-context note about identity and current priorities. Returns content, character limit, and used count.

Instructions

Read the pinned "core memory" block for a (scope, namespace) — a small, bounded, always-in-context note the agent maintains about who it is and what matters now. Returns content, char_limit, and used (character count).

Tool call template

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": "core_memory_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoMemory scope for isolationglobal
namespaceNoNamespace within scope (e.g., project name, team name)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.6.4

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by detailing return fields (content, char_limit, used count) and constraints (bounded, always-in-context). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word contributes to understanding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (content, char_limit, used) and explains the tool's role (pinned core memory). Sufficient for a read operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it only contextualizes the overall tool purpose.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Read'), resource ('pinned core memory block'), and scope ('for a (scope, namespace)'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on the 'pinned' and 'always-in-context' core memory, contrasting with other memory tools like memory_get.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_get or core_memory_append/replace. The description implies a read operation for core memory but does not specify when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools