Retrieve a stored memory as readable text with source metadata by providing its memory ID and project ID.
Get one stored memory as readable text with source metadata. Pass the memory_id and owning project_id from recall as memory_id and project. Does not expand neighbors or read live source files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Optional project ID. Defaults to the repository-scoped project. | |
| memory_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.4Does 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 does so well by disclosing the read-only nature ('readable text'), the inclusion of source metadata, and two explicit operational limits: 'Does not expand neighbors or read live source files.' This gives an agent useful behavioral expectations beyond the schema.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and output, the second explains parameter provenance, and the third states limitations. There is no fluff or repetitive content.
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?
Given the low complexity of a two-parameter read operation, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, where the parameters come from, and what it deliberately avoids doing. Without an output schema or annotations, this description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.
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 50% because only project has a description. The description compensates by explaining that memory_id and project should come from recall results, clarifying their relationship and intended source. This adds meaning beyond just the parameter names and types.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one stored memory as readable text with source metadata.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling memory tools like cuemap_memory_delete or cuemap_recall by focusing on single retrieval with metadata and explicitly saying it does not expand neighbors or read live source files.
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 a clear instruction on when to use it: pass the memory_id and owning project_id from recall. It implies the workflow of first using recall to obtain IDs, then calling this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the 'from recall' context is sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.