Retrieve a specific memory by ID to view its full content, linked entities, and edit history. Use it to inspect stored facts, decisions, or notes in local memory.
Get the full content of a specific memory including linked entities and edit history.
Args: memory_id: The ID of the memory to retrieve
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. "Get" implies a read operation, and it usefully discloses that the response includes linked entities and edit history, but it does not state permissions, error behavior, or side-effect guarantees.
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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is short. The separate Args line mostly restates the schema, but overall the text is efficient and not bloated.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource and describes the returned content composition. The main remaining gap is sibling routing, especially relative to get_memory_history and search_memory.
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?
There is one required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args line identifies memory_id as "The ID of the memory to retrieve", which is correct but only minimally expands on the schema.
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 and resource: "Get the full content of a specific memory", and adds scope details (linked entities and edit history). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as get_memory_history or search_memory.
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?
It implies retrieval by memory_id but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative recommendations. This is notable because get_memory_history is a close sibling and the description even mentions edit history without explaining why one should choose get_memory over the history tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.