Trace a memory's origin, saving tool and session, linked files, and full history to diagnose wrong or surprising entries.
Show where a memory came from (which tool and session saved it, which files it's linked to) and everything that has happened to it since. Use it when a memory looks wrong or surprising.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The naming ('explain', 'show') strongly implies a read-only inspection, and the description discloses the two categories of information returned (origin and subsequent history), but it never states read-only semantics, whether any state changes, or permission needs.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and closing with the usage cue. No filler or restated name/title.
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 structure need not be explained, and the description already says what is surfaced. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the read-only guarantee and memory_id format are missing.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single memory_id parameter, so the description should compensate and does not — it says 'a memory' with no hint about ID format or how to obtain one. The parameter is self-describing enough ('memory_id', title 'Memory Id') that the gap is mild rather than fatal.
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 and resource: 'show where a memory came from' plus 'everything that has happened to it since'. This clearly separates it from siblings like recall (retrieval) or check_stale (staleness), though it never names an alternative 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?
Gives a concrete triggering condition: 'Use it when a memory looks wrong or surprising.' That is real when-to-use guidance, but there is no when-not guidance and no named alternative for related diagnostic tasks such as list_conflicts or check_stale.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.