curator-mcp

Recall Memories

recall_memories

Retrieve previously saved memories and directives by keyword or category to personalize recommendations and maintain context across conversations.

Instructions

Recall stored memories and directives matching a topic or category.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results to return. Defaults to 5.
`query`	No	Keyword or topic query (e.g. 'coffee', 'tokyo', 'reading').
`category`	No	Category filter ('preference', 'dislike', 'goal', 'habit', 'context', 'directive').
`min_importance`	No	Minimum importance threshold (1 to 5). Defaults to 1.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Recall' implies a safe read, but the description never confirms read-only/non-destructive behavior, permissions, or any traits beyond the bare action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema. However, for a tool with zero annotations, the description leaves usage context and behavioral expectations unaddressed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'topic or category' loosely maps to query and category, but adds no syntax, examples, or default behavior beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (recall) and resource (stored memories and directives) with the filtering dimension (topic or category). It is distinguishable from the obvious sibling store_memory by direction, but does not differentiate itself from other retrieval tools like search_vault.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no signal about when recall is preferred over search_vault or the other retrieval siblings.

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