Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lithtrix-mcp

lithtrix-mcp

Official
by lithtrix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

lithtrix_memory_get

Retrieve a stored memory by key to access persisted information across sessions and agents.

Instructions

Retrieve a stored memory by key (GET /v1/memory/{key}). Requires LITHTRIX_API_KEY.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "lithtrix_memory_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesMemory key (1–128 chars: letters, digits, hyphen, underscore, dot, colon)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions auth requirement but does not explain error behavior (e.g., if key missing), idempotency (GET is safe), or result format. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. It is efficient with no redundancy, though the endpoint path could be considered unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description should at least hint at the return value or error handling. It only covers purpose and auth, leaving the agent guessing about what happens on success/failure.

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?

The input schema already provides a detailed description of the 'key' parameter (length, pattern). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema covers. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'stored memory by key', and includes the HTTP method for clarity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lithtrix_memory_set' (create/update) and 'lithtrix_memory_search' (search without key).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you have a specific key, but does not explicitly state when to avoid or what alternatives exist (e.g., use search if no key). The sibling tool names provide some context but no explicit guidance.

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