Skip to main content
Glama

recall

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search persistent memory by keywords to find specific project knowledge; filter by tags, scope, or time and return ranked results with scores.

Instructions

SEARCH memory by keywords. Use to find a SPECIFIC piece of knowledge, e.g. 'API convention' or 'license decision'. Returns ranked results with scores. Default view is compact: per item key, tags, score and the first ~300 chars of content (a trailing … marks a cut; timestamps, scope and bookkeeping fields are omitted). For the whole text of one entry call get_memory(key); full=true returns every item uncut with all stored fields (created_at included). Below the relevance threshold, returns an empty list with an explanation instead of weak matches. For loading ALL project knowledge at session start, use get_project_knowledge instead. Set include_archived=true to retrieve archived memories.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoReturn every item in full, with all stored fields and uncut content (default false: compact view, content cut at ~300 chars and marked with a trailing `…`, bookkeeping fields such as agent_id, workspace_id, simhash and decay scores are left out). Prefer get_memory(key) to read one cut entry in full; full=true re-fetches the whole page uncut.
tagsNoAND-filter: memory must contain ALL listed tags.
limitNoMax results (1–50). Omitted compact requests use 5; full=true or an explicit profile keeps the previous default 10. Existing profile presets still apply when limit is omitted (multi-session uses 20, including automatic classification). Explicit limit wins. This is a hard bound: the response never contains more than limit items. When knowledge-graph boost is enabled, a share of the page (limit/4, at least 1 when limit>=2) may be filled with graph-expanded neighbours, marked graph_boost=true and provenance=via:graph — they take the tail slots instead of being added on top. Rows that fail scope/tags are dropped, never returned unmarked, whether they arrived by retrieval, by pinning, or by graph expansion.
queryYesFull-text search query.
scopeNoFilter by scope: workspace, project, agent, or all (default).
sinceNoReturn memories created at or after this RFC3339 timestamp.
untilNoReturn memories created at or before this RFC3339 timestamp.
offsetNoPagination offset (default 0).
order_byNoSort order: created_at:desc (default), created_at:asc, relevance:desc, decayed_relevance:desc.
tags_anyNoOR-filter: memory must contain AT LEAST ONE of these tags.
created_byNoFilter by agent ID (UUID).
project_idNoFilter to a specific project.
relevance_minNoMinimum relevance score (0-1).
min_importanceNoMinimum importance_score threshold (0-1, default 0.3 — matches the lowest score the server assigns, kind:session-checkpoint, so prior-session hand-offs are returned without an override). Raise it to exclude low-value entries; pass 0 to disable filtering entirely.
recall_profileNoOverride automatic query classification. Existing preset values are preserved; explicit limit takes precedence.
include_expiredNoInclude expired memories (default false).
include_archivedNoInclude archived memories in results (default false).
apply_recency_decayNoSort by relevance * 0.95^days_since_created.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description goes further by disclosing return behavior with no output schema present: the compact default shape, the ~300-char cut with trailing ellipsis, omitted bookkeeping fields, and the below-threshold empty-list-with-explanation behavior. It does not mention pagination interplay with offset, which is a minor gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose and primary alternative, then layered into return shape, edge-case threshold behavior, and remaining options. No sentence is redundant with another, and the length is proportionate to an 18-parameter search tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With 18 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well (compact vs full, cut markers, threshold fallback). Filtering mechanics (scope, tags semantics, pagination) are left to the schema, which is reasonable given its 100% coverage, but the interaction between limit, offset and graph-boost tail slots is only documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds routing meaning for full=true (prefer get_memory for a single cut entry; full re-fetches the whole page uncut) and flags include_archived=true. The remaining 15 parameters — scope, tags, since/until, offset — are left entirely to the schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('SEARCH memory by keywords') and immediately disambiguates from siblings: get_memory for one entry's full text, get_project_knowledge for loading everything at session start. An agent can distinguish recall from its near-namesakes without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the trigger case ('find a SPECIFIC piece of knowledge'), gives concrete example queries, and routes to two named alternatives with the exact conditions that select them. The only unmentioned sibling is recall_with_graph, but the two dominant decision points are covered explicitly.

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