Retrieve a specific memory's complete archived text and metadata by providing its ID or URL.
Retrieve the full archived text and metadata of a specific memory by its ID or URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Memory/bookmark ID | |
| url | No | Target URL to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It covers what is returned (text and metadata) but says nothing about error responses for missing IDs/URLs, whether the operation is read-only, or how to handle an invalid lookup. The read-only nature is only implied by 'retrieve'.
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?
A single focused sentence, front-loaded with the core action and result, with no wasted words. Perfectly sized for a simple lookup tool.
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?
Adequate baseline for a 2-param read tool, but the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should clarify the id/url relationship and expected failure modes. The 0-required-params signal makes the missing guidance on providing neither or both more significant.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful hint that parameters are alternative lookup keys ('by its ID or URL'), but does not explain precedence if both are supplied, mutual exclusivity, or behavior when neither is provided.
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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full archived text and metadata of a specific memory'), and clarifies the lookup keys (ID or URL). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like cowpin_search_memory, but the 'full archived text' phrasing implies this is the complete fetch rather than a search result.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of cowpin_search_memory or cowpin_save_memory. The description neither names alternatives nor provides a decision rule such as 'use search to find IDs first', so an agent is left to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.