Retrieve relevant context for a question from a memory bank using provider-backed search, so coding agents can answer with grounded information.
Retrieve context for a question (Hindsight recall API; mem0/Cognee use search under the hood).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions the backend APIs but does not describe whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, whether it mutates state, or any permission/rate-limit considerations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no padding. The parenthetical about Hindsight/mem0/Cognee is somewhat tangential but still compact.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not tell an agent enough about behavior, return values, or parameter usage to call the tool confidently.
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%, so the description should compensate for all three parameters. It only indirectly maps 'query' to 'a question'; the 'bank' and 'limit' parameters are not explained at all.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve context for a question.' It is clear what the tool does in general, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling memory_search beyond a vague parenthetical about underlying implementations.
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?
It implies the tool is for question-answering context retrieval, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose memory_recall over memory_search or memory_reflect. There are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.