Retrieve a stored memory or knowledge entry by its key. Use this to fetch exact records from the local homebase garden for LLM memory and orchestration.
Get a specific entry by key
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Entry key. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0-alpha.29Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether the read is safe, what happens when the key is absent (error vs null), or whether the lookup is case-sensitive or namespaced — all meaningful for a retrieval tool with a free-form string key.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler — verb and lookup mechanism come first. It is efficient but so terse that there was no opportunity to front-load anything more useful.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, nothing in the structured data tells the agent what an entry contains or how failures surface. For a tool whose only behavior is returning a keyed object, the description should at least sketch the return shape.
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 100% and the single parameter is documented as "Entry key." The description adds no format, prefix, or case rules beyond that, so it sits at the baseline appropriate when the schema does the work.
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 (Get) and the keyed lookup, which does contrast with hb_garden_find's implied search. However, the resource is only described as "a specific entry" with no indication of what a garden entry is or which namespace it lives in, so the agent gets the mechanic but not the domain.
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 versus hb_garden_find (search) or hb_garden_put (write). The description implies read-by-key but never states the condition that selects this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.