Retrieve verified project lessons and facts, plus code file pointers, via a query. Filter by domain or project to get relevant memory for coding tasks.
Search project memory: verified lessons/facts in full, code as file pointers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| domain | No | ||
| project | No | Absolute project root (once per session is enough) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavior: verified lessons/facts are returned in full while code is returned only as file pointers. That is real result-shaping context. It says nothing, however, about ranking, limits, permissions, or what happens on an empty match.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding; the scope and result shape come first. It is slightly compressed to the point of being cryptic ('code as file pointers' takes a moment to parse), but nothing is wasted.
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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% parameter coverage, this description is too thin. It partially covers return semantics but omits parameter meaning and usage context that the agent needs 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 25% (just the project root), so the description should compensate for query, limit, and domain — and it does not. None of those three parameters are explained anywhere, leaving their semantics (e.g. limit default, domain values) undocumented.
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 (Search) and resource (project memory) and even characterizes the result shape: verified lessons/facts in full, code as file pointers. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remember/checkpoint/guard, which are write-oriented, though the name 'search' alone would be ambiguous without the description.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told when to search memory versus using remember, checkpoint, or report, nor what a good query looks like.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.