Skip to main content
Glama
donggyun112

keymem

by donggyun112
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_key

List and rank memory handles under one concept key, returning IDs, metadata, and validity without content, so agents can choose which memory to inspect. Pass a query to rank by content relevance.

Instructions

List the memories stored under one key (concept), ranked. Returns the canonical key, its aliases, and hub metadata plus ranked memory IDs, metadata, and validity — never memory content. Pass a focused query for the missing fact and the active namespace when known: handles are then ranked by content relevance, which is essential for hubs. Each memory's score is content_relevance × link_weight × depth_factor × freshness_factor when query is passed (link_weight × depth_factor × freshness_factor otherwise); content_relevance is a cosine, comparable to recall's key relevance — both only meaningful within this one key's ranking. Call read_memory(memory_id, via_key_id=key_id, namespace) on the selected handle to inspect the fact and reinforce the path; reading does not confirm that its content is current. Use limit/offset to page without flooding context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNo
key_idYes
offsetNo
namespaceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.29.0
  2. Removedv0.17.1
  3. First observedv0.14.8

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the exact return shape (canonical key, aliases, hub metadata, ranked IDs, metadata, validity, but never content), the ranking formula including the query/no-query variants, and the caveat that reading does not confirm content currency. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a dense single paragraph, but front-loaded with what the tool lists before moving to scoring and follow-up. The formula sentence is long yet information-bearing; little here is filler, though it could be broken into shorter units for scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: return contents, ranking behavior, follow-up call signature, and pagination. Nothing material to correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains query (a focused query for the missing fact), namespace (the active namespace when known), and limit/offset (paging without flooding context). key_id is only implicitly covered as 'the key', which is the one modest gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the memories stored under one key (concept), ranked') and immediately scopes what is returned versus withheld ('never memory content'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming read_memory as the follow-up and by contrasting its key relevance with recall's.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear conditional guidance: pass a focused query when the fact is missing, pass the active namespace when known, and use limit/offset to page. It routes to the alternative (read_memory with via_key_id) and explains why. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools