get_memoryRetrieve a specific stored memory by its SHA-256 hash to access exact historical information from the persistent SQLite-backed memory server.
Retrieve memory by hash
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Hash of the memory (SHA-256, 64 hex chars) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No | ||
| result | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve memory by hash' only restates the action implied by the name; it does not disclose what happens on a miss, whether the operation is strictly read-only, or whether any errors are expected. The presence of an output schema helps but is not part of the description.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it could include more useful behavioral or usage context without sacrificing conciseness.
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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits usage guidance and behavior on missing hashes, and given the large sibling set, some disambiguation would make the definition complete.
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?
The input schema fully documents the hash parameter with a type, pattern, and description (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Retrieve memory by hash' uses a specific verb and resource, and adds the retrieval key (hash). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling retrieval tools like search_memories or recall.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the many siblings (search_memories, recall, get_relationships). The only implied usage is that you need a hash, but this is not stated as a decision rule or contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.