Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
memory-lite-mcp

memory-lite-mcp

by jipbapkitchen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

recall

Read-only

Find saved memories by keyword, newest first (up to 10), so you can check stored user details before answering questions.

Instructions

Find saved memories containing any of the given keywords (newest first, max 10). Use before saying you don't know something about the user.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "recall"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description usefully adds ordering ('newest first'), a result cap ('max 10'), and the OR-style keyword matching rule. It still doesn't say what a memory record contains or what happens with an empty query.

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 compact sentences, with the retrieval behavior and ordering/cap front-loaded before the usage cue. Every clause adds information and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly: matching semantics, result order, and result limit. It could be stronger by clarifying empty-query behavior and what memory content is returned, but it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does add meaning: the query is treated as keywords and matching is 'any of' them, which explains OR semantics. However, it does not explain the behavior when 'query' is omitted, despite the parameter being optional.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Find saved memories') plus scope ('containing any of the given keywords'), so an agent knows this is a retrieval operation. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the 'remember' and 'forget' siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear usage trigger: call this before claiming ignorance about the user. That is actionable context, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to recall, or how this relates to 'remember'/'forget').

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools