Retrieve only active memories by query and agent ID, filtering out superseded, expired, or deleted entries so agents use current, valid context.
Recall only currently-active memories (excludes superseded, expired, deleted).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| memory_types | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral value by enumerating what is filtered out (superseded, expired, deleted), which is more than the schema says, but it omits read-only guarantees, whether agent_id scoping restricts visibility, ordering, and truncation behavior.
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 filler, and the parenthetical exclusion list is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but there is zero wasted wording.
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?
The tool has five parameters, two required, with no schema descriptions and no annotations; the output schema covers return values, but that is the only relief. For a filtered retrieval tool this definition does not supply enough for an agent to construct a correct query or predict scoping behavior.
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 0% and the description explains none of the five parameters. Query semantics (keyword vs. semantic), the role of agent_id, and the meaning of tags, limit, and memory_types are left entirely to inference from bare property names.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Recall') plus a resource ('memories') and constrains the scope to currently-active records with an explicit exclusion list. This lets an agent distinguish it from the broader memanto_recall and the time-traveling memanto_recall_as_of, though the sibling names are never mentioned explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the alternatives (memanto_recall, memanto_recall_as_of, memanto_answer) are named. The agent must infer from 'only currently-active' that this is the right pick when stale/historical memories should be suppressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.