Retrieve memories created or updated on a given local date, with new entries grouped by category, so you can review daily activity and recall what changed.
Get memories created or updated on a specific local date, with new ones grouped by category.
Args: date: Date in YYYY-MM-DD format, in this machine's local timezone (default: today)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits beyond structure: results are grouped by category and the date boundary is evaluated in the machine's local timezone, but it says nothing about read-only nature, result volume, ordering, or pagination limits.
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 behavior sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is minimal, with no filler. Slightly more structure than needed for a single optional parameter, but nothing is wasted.
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?
One optional parameter, fully explained, and an output schema exists so return values need no prose. The remaining gap is the ambiguity about ordering and whether "updated" includes deletions or moves, minor for a read-only digest tool.
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 coverage is 0% — the schema only declares a string with an empty default — so the description has to compensate, and it does: YYYY-MM-DD format, local-timezone interpretation, and a today fallback. The only blemish is that the stated default ("today") doesn't match the schema's empty-string default.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get memories") plus a precise scope ("created or updated on a specific local date") and a result shape ("new ones grouped by category"). It is clearly differentiable from search_memory or list_memories by the date-scoping, though no sibling is named 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?
The "daily" framing plus the today-by-default behavior implies when this tool is the right pick, but it never states when to prefer it over list_memories, get_stats, or search_memory, and gives no exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.