Retrieve a complete memory by ID within a selected scope, including expired state. Use include_deleted to access removed records.
Get a full memory by ID in the selected scope. Returns expired state; deleted records require include_deleted:true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| project | No | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| include_deleted | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as returning expired state and the requirement for include_deleted to access deleted records. This complements the readOnly and idempotent hints.
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 compact and to the point, with two sentences that deliver key information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the essential context: what is retrieved, the scope behavior, and the special case of deleted records. It does not address error handling or return format, but these are not critical for a straightforward get operation.
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 description only implicitly covers 'id' (as the identifier) and 'include_deleted' (as the flag for deleted records). It does not explain 'project' or 'namespace' parameters, leaving their role vague ('selected scope'). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries limited parameter meaning.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'memory by ID', and the scope 'selected scope'. It also distinguishes itself from list/search operations by focusing on a single memory retrieval.
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?
It specifies the 'selected scope' and the behavior for deleted records ('deleted records require include_deleted:true'), giving clear conditions for use. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the singular retrieval intent is evident from the phrasing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.