Retrieve all memories in a conversation thread in chronological order by passing a thread ID. Use it to reconstruct the full sequence of saved notes for a specific incident or analysis.
Get all memories in a conversation thread, in chronological order.
Args: thread_id: The thread ID to retrieve (e.g. "incident-2026-03-24", "stock-analysis-march")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the chronological ordering of results, which is real behavioral context the schema does not express. However, it says nothing about whether the call is read-only, what happens with an unknown/empty thread_id, whether results are capped or paginated, or any ordering ties — notable omissions for an unannotated tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence establishes the operation, scope, and ordering, followed by a compact args block whose only content beyond the schema is the useful example formats. Nothing is padded.
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 output schema is present, so return-value explanation is not required, and one parameter is well covered. Still missing for a retrieval tool in a 15-tool family: how to discover a thread_id, behavior on missing threads, and whether result sets are bounded — gaps an agent could hit immediately.
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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter — and it does, both labelling thread_id and giving two concrete format examples ("incident-2026-03-24", "stock-analysis-march") that convey the naming convention. It stops short of saying whether the ID is case-sensitive or how to obtain one via list_threads.
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 — retrieve all memories belonging to a conversation thread — plus a distinguishing scope (whole thread, not a single memory) and ordering guarantee (chronological). It does not name a sibling such as get_memory or search_memory to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied: you call this when you already have a thread_id and want that thread's full contents. There is no explicit guidance contrasting it with list_threads (to discover thread IDs), search_memory (query-based retrieval), or get_memory (single record), and no stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.