Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ruflo GPT

Ruflo GPT

by furkanhos16
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

memory_retrieve

Read-only

Retrieve a previously stored value by exact namespace and key, returning the full lossless data and metadata for project-scoped persistent memory.

Instructions

Read back a value previously stored via memory_store, by exact (namespace, key) — lossless, includes metadata. Use for project-scoped persistent memory. Never import personal memory automatically. Data is isolated by project_path; runtime reports actual embedding and storage backend.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "key": "<key>",
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "memory_retrieve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key
namespaceNoNamespace (default: "default")
project_pathYesAbsolute path to the existing project directory. Always use the current task workspace. Each canonical path has its own isolated Ruflo store.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: results are lossless, metadata is included, storage is isolated per project_path, and the runtime surfaces the actual embedding/storage backend — useful for trusting the result's provenance.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and lookup mode, then alternatives and constraints, with no filler. The trailing clause about runtime-reported embedding/backend is slightly cryptic but still earns its place as provenance information.

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 no output schema, the description does state the return is lossless and carries metadata, plus the isolation guarantee. It stops short of saying what happens when the key is absent (empty result vs. error), which is the one behavior an agent would still have to guess.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including project_path isolation. The description's only addition is that matching is exact rather than fuzzy, which is meaningful but thin; the project-isolation note largely restates 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read back a value previously stored via memory_store') and pins the lookup mode as exact (namespace, key), which cleanly separates it from the semantic-oriented memory_search sibling. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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 context ('Use for project-scoped persistent memory') and one explicit exclusion ('Never import personal memory automatically'). It does not explicitly name memory_search/memory_list as the alternative when exact match is not known, leaving that routing to inference from the word 'exact'.

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