search_memoryRetrieve saved memories and conclusions by text, kind, or tags to find relevant context stored locally.
Search saved local memories and conclusions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Search query. Empty query returns recent records. | |
| namespace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Input schema / properties / namespaceAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., result ordering, pagination, or the effect of an empty query) beyond the obvious act of searching. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and a rich set of siblings, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to formulate an effective query, or how it relates to the broader memory ecosystem. The agent would need to rely heavily on schema and external knowledge to use it correctly.
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?
With schema description coverage at only 20% (only the 'query' parameter has a description), the tool description should compensate by explaining the key parameters. It does not mention 'kind', 'tags', 'limit', or 'namespace' at all, leaving the agent to interpret them solely from the schema. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 clearly states the action (search) and the resource (saved local memories and conclusions). This is specific and distinguishes it from list-oriented tools like list_conclusions or recall_memory, which imply retrieval of specific items rather than a search.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recall_memory, ask_memory, or list_conclusions. It neither states typical use cases nor exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.