Skip to main content
Glama
aliasunder

Vault Cortex Obsidian MCP Server

Memory Recall

vault_memory_recall
Read-onlyIdempotent

Recall memory entries on any topic across all vault memory files and dates, using hybrid keyword and semantic search to reveal how a preference, opinion, or fact evolved.

Instructions

Recall memory entries about a topic — entry-granular hybrid (keyword + semantic) retrieval across ALL About Me/ files and ALL time. Returns every relevant dated entry sorted oldest-first, so the full evolution of a preference, opinion, or fact is visible — semantic matching finds early entries even when their phrasing differs from the query. Tuned for recall over precision: expect some marginal entries and judge relevance yourself when synthesizing an answer. Content-word queries ("testing philosophy", "sustainable pacing") rank best. A meta-framed query ("opinions on testing") that scores below the relevance threshold degrades to relaxed any-term keyword matching instead of returning nothing.

Example: vault_memory_recall({ query: "working hours and pacing" }) Example: vault_memory_recall({ query: "testing philosophy", file: "Opinions" })

When to use: Answering "what does my memory say about X?" or "how has my view on Y evolved?" — topic-based recall across memory files. Prefer vault_get_memory to read a known file or section verbatim; prefer vault_search for notes outside the memory layer.

Errors:

  • No matching entries returns { entries: [], total: 0 }, not an error

  • An unknown file returns empty results — call vault_list_memory_files to discover valid names

Returns: JSON { entries, total, truncated, search_mode, reranked }. Each entry is { file, section, date, text } — text is the raw entry markdown (wikilinks intact, continuation lines included); file and section feed directly into vault_get_memory or vault_delete_memory. entries ascend by date (oldest first). total counts all matched entries; truncated=true means limit dropped the least-relevant matches — never a date range — so raise limit or narrow the query for the complete set. file is applied before limit, so limit keeps the most relevant matches from that file. search_mode is "hybrid" when vector matching contributed, "fts" when the entries came from keyword matching alone — including the any-term fallback that rescues a would-be-empty result; reranked is true when the cross-encoder relevance cut was applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoOptional: restrict to one memory file, name without .md (e.g. "Opinions"), in its exact letter case. Omit for cross-file recall — the default and usual choice.
limitNoCap on returned entries (default 50).
queryYesTopic to recall — natural language works best (semantic matching bridges phrasing drift across months); content words about the topic rank better than meta framing ("testing philosophy" over "opinions on testing")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.54.9
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Cap on returned entries (default 50). When more match, the least-relevant are dropped and truncated=true — never a date range."New value: +"Cap on returned entries (default 50)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.54.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / file / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: restrict to one memory file, name without .md (e.g. \"Opinions\"). Omit for cross-file recall — the default and usual choice."New value: +"Optional: restrict to one memory file, name without .md (e.g. \"Opinions\"), in its exact letter case. Omit for cross-file recall — the default and usual choice."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.50.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": 50,
      +  "description": "Cap on returned entries (default 50). When more match, the least-relevant are dropped and truncated=true — never a date range.",
      +  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
      +  "minimum": 1,
      +  "type": "integer"
      +}
    • removedInput schema / properties / max_results
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Cap on returned entries (default 50). When more match, the least-relevant are dropped and truncated=true — never a date range.",
      -  "type": "number"
      -}
  4. Addedv0.32.1
  5. Removedv0.32.0
  6. Addedv0.27.2

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: recall-over-precision tuning (expect marginal entries), the any-term keyword fallback that rescues a would-be-empty result, that unknown files return empty rather than erroring, and the meaning of truncated/search_mode/reranked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose then usage then errors then returns, so scanning is easy. It is long and the Returns paragraph is dense, but nearly every sentence carries non-redundant semantics; only marginal tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape ({entries, total, truncated, search_mode, reranked}), per-entry fields, sort order, and error semantics. Nothing an agent needs to interpret results correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends it: query phrasing guidance (content words rank better than meta framing), that file is applied before limit, and that limit drops least-relevant matches rather than a date range. The file parameter's case-sensitivity and default omission are covered by the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (recall), resource (memory entries), retrieval mechanism (entry-granular hybrid keyword + semantic), and scope (ALL About Me/ files, ALL time). It explicitly distinguishes itself from vault_get_memory and vault_search, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The 'When to use' block gives concrete trigger questions ('what does my memory say about X?') and names the two alternatives with the conditions that select them: vault_get_memory for a known file/section verbatim, vault_search for notes outside the memory layer. Exclusions are explicit.

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