Fetch a quarantined memory entry by ID to view its full content and the reason it was quarantined. Returns 'not in quarantine' for non-quarantined IDs.
DEPRECATED: use mind_quarantine(action="show"). Removed in v2.0. (Show a single quarantined entry with its full content and the gate reason. Returns 'not in quarantine' for regular memory ids: the surface is honest about what it can see.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful edge behavior — returning "not in quarantine" for regular memory ids — but says nothing about permissions, output shape, or whether the read is safe/idempotent, so coverage is partial.
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 deprecation warning is front-loaded where an agent will see it first, followed by the functional description in parentheses. Nearly every sentence earns its place; the parenthetical behavioral note is slightly buried but useful.
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 deprecated one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers lifecycle status, replacement, purpose, and one return edge case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent deciding whether to call or avoid it.
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% for the single required `id` parameter. The description hints the id can be either a quarantine entry id or a regular memory id (via the "not in quarantine" behavior), which adds some meaning, but does not specify the expected id format.
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 states a specific verb and resource — "Show a single quarantined entry with its full content and the gate reason" — which is far more than the name alone conveys. It also makes the lifecycle status unambiguous (deprecated, removed in v2.0), though it does not explicitly contrast with the single-entry vs. list sibling (mind_quarantine_list).
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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance ("DEPRECATED") and names the exact replacement call, mind_quarantine(action="show"), plus the removal version. An agent needs no inference to know this tool should not be selected for new work.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.