Search a local SQLite-backed memory store semantically to retrieve past decisions, preferences, and pitfalls across AI sessions, supporting Chinese and English text.
语义检索本地记忆库（中文 bigram + 英文混合检索）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | 按类型过滤 | |
| limit | No | 返回条数，默认5 | |
| query | Yes | 查询（支持中文） | |
| project | No | 按项目过滤 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the retrieval mechanism (Chinese bigram plus English hybrid search), which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it does not state result format, ordering, limits, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior.
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 compact phrase with no wasted wording and is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though extremely terse for a tool with several filters.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to explain what results are returned and how search behaves. It names the retrieval approach but omits return shape, ordering, and how the filter parameters affect results. This leaves material gaps for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including query, type, project, and limit. The description adds retrieval-method context but no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: 检索 (retrieve/search) the local memory store. It also states that retrieval is semantic and bilingual, which makes the purpose clearer than a bare name. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as memory_list or session_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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_list, memory_context, or session_recall. The word 语义 implies a semantic-search use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or sibling routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.