GoodMemory

goodmemory_trace_recall

Diagnose why a memory recall failed or returned unexpected results by tracing routing, candidate scores, and suppression reasons.

Instructions

Diagnostic. Explain a recall: routing, hits, per-candidate scores, and suppression reasons. Call it when a memory that should exist did not surface, or when a surfaced memory looks wrong.

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": "goodmemory_trace_recall"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cwd`	No	Workspace root. Defaults to the current working directory.
`query`	Yes
`strategy`	No
`sessionId`	No	Optional host session id for session-scoped recall.
`retrievalProfile`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses diagnostic nature and explains internal details. Implies read-only, but doesn't explicitly state lack of side effects or permissions needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with 'Diagnostic,' then specifics. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Purpose and usage are clear, but parameter details are missing, and no output schema means description should hint at return structure but does not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 40%, and description adds no detail about parameters (query, cwd, strategy, sessionId, retrievalProfile) beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states diagnostic purpose, explains what it explains (routing, hits, scores, suppression reasons), and gives two specific use cases. Distinguishes from sibling diagnostic tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use: when a memory should exist but didn't surface, or when a surfaced memory looks wrong. No ambiguity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server