Retrieve personal memory events and entities using a capture ID after preflight. Supports probe and deep levels for contextual recall.
按 v2 事件、实体和情境卡读取 probe/deep。必须先完成当前轮次 turn preflight capture，并提供 capture_id；否则拒绝读取。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | ||
| level | No | probe | |
| query | No | ||
| capture_id | No | ||
| maintenance | No | 显式声明非交互只读（等价 CLI --maintenance）；足迹/攻略类消息 capture 被拦时的只读降级通道，有 trace 审计 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.0Input schema / properties / maintenanceAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "显式声明非交互只读（等价 CLI --maintenance）；足迹/攻略类消息 capture 被拦时的只读降级通道，有 trace 审计",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "capture_id"
-]New value: +[]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: the tool refuses to read unless the current turn preflight capture is completed and capture_id is provided. It does not describe return values or other failure modes, but the key enforcement behavior is clearly surfaced.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisite/refusal behavior follows immediately, making the critical information easy to parse.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It captures the main precondition but leaves most parameter semantics, result shape, and relationship to the many sibling tools unaddressed, so an agent would still struggle to invoke it correctly.
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 only 20%, so the description must compensate for underdocumented parameters. It only gives meaningful context for capture_id; ids, query, and level remain effectively unexplained beyond their schema types/enums/defaults, leaving the agent unable to construct well-formed calls.
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 clearly states the action ('读取' / read) and the resource ('probe/deep'), and scopes the access by v2 events, entities, and scenario cards. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the phrasing makes its role as a retrieval step after preflight distinct enough.
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?
The description gives explicit usage context: retrieval requires the current turn's preflight capture and a valid capture_id, otherwise the tool refuses. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it is one step below full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.