Retrieve a specific belief by ID from Mimir's persistent reasoning memory to access decisions, evidence, corrections, and experience history for AI coding agents.
Get a belief by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond what the verb implies. It does not say whether a missing ID returns null, an empty result, or an error, nor whether the read is free of side effects.
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?
A single short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately terse for a one-parameter lookup, though the brevity leaves nothing to structure.
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 trivial single-item fetch the description is minimally sufficient, but with no annotations, no output schema, and a rich sibling set it should have said something about failure behavior and how it relates to explain_belief or list_beliefs.
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% and the single parameter is documented only as an untyped string. The phrase 'by ID' clarifies that the value identifies a belief rather than a project or pattern, but no format, source, or lookup behavior is given, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (get) and resource (belief) scoped to a single retrieval by ID, which separates it from list_beliefs. However it does not distinguish itself from likely-overlapping siblings such as explain_belief or get_evidence beyond the resource name.
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 on when to retrieve a belief directly versus using list_beliefs, explain_belief, or query_relevant. Nothing is said about prerequisites or what to do when the ID is unknown.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed