Restore an archived memory by ID, returning it to search results. Use it to undo reversible archiving of cold memories instead of permanent deletion.
Restore an ARCHIVED (soft-forgotten) memory by id, returning it to search. Archiving (consolidate --archive-cold) reversibly hides cold memories instead of deleting them; this is the undo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Memory id of an archived entry |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful traits: archiving is reversible, memories are hidden rather than deleted, and the effect is returning to search. It does not cover failure modes (invalid/non-archived id), side effects, or permissions, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and the id-scoping front-loaded and the archiving relationship following as supporting context. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and understand its effect on search. It is slightly incomplete on return behavior and error handling, but the essential context is present.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Memory id of an archived entry'. The description reinforces 'by id' but adds no syntax, format, or constraint beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (restore) on a specific resource (an ARCHIVED, soft-forgotten memory) addressed by id, and frames the operation precisely as the undo of archiving. An agent can immediately distinguish it from sibling mind_delete (permanent removal) and mind_consolidate (the archiving operation itself).
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?
Explicitly ties usage to the archiving operation ('Archiving (consolidate --archive-cold) reversibly hides...; this is the undo'), giving a clear condition that selects this tool over alternatives. It does not state exclusions (e.g. what to do when the id was hard-deleted rather than archived), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.