Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
GitMem

GitMem

Official
by gitmem-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

search

Use natural language queries to explore institutional memory and retrieve matching scars, wins, patterns, and anti-patterns without side effects.

Instructions

Search institutional memory by query. Unlike recall (which is action-oriented), search is exploration-oriented — returns matching scars/wins/patterns without side effects.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesNatural language search query (e.g., 'deployment failures', 'Supabase RLS')
projectNoProject namespace (e.g., 'my-project'). Scopes sessions and searches.
severityNoFilter by severity level
match_countNoNumber of results to return (default: 5)
learning_typeNoFilter by learning type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.6.4

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'without side effects', which is good, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or return format. For a search tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word earns its place—no fluff, clear and to the point.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and 5 parameters, the description is fairly complete. It defines the tool's purpose, contrast with recall, and confirms no side effects. Could mention result format or pagination, but not a major gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that it returns matching items without side effects. No extra parameter details are provided.

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 clearly states 'Search institutional memory by query' and distinguishes from recall, which is action-oriented. The verb 'search' and resource 'institutional memory' are specific.

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?

The description explicitly contrasts with recall (exploration vs action) and notes no side effects, helping agents decide when to use it. However, it doesn't list when not to use or other alternatives.

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