Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chat-memory

chat-memory

by mav-rix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_memory

Retrieve a stored memory by ID, optionally including its earlier versions, to review past context and track changes across sessions.

Instructions

Get one memory in full, optionally with its earlier versions.

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": {
      "memory_id": "<memory_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_memory"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
memory_idYes
with_historyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partly meets it: 'in full' hints that sibling tools return partial views, and 'optionally with its earlier versions' discloses a versioning behavior not visible elsewhere. It says nothing about behavior on a missing or forgotten memory_id, permissions, or payload size, which matters for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded ahead of the optional flag; nothing is padded or redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Because an output schema exists, the return shape need not be described, and the tool is simple with only two parameters. Still, for an unannotated read tool the definition omits error/edge behavior and the relationship to search-style siblings, leaving a modest gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain with_history as retrieving 'earlier versions', but memory_id gets no treatment beyond its self-evident name (type, expected origin, error on unknown id), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one memory') plus a scope qualifier ('in full'), which distinguishes it from the bulk/list siblings like list_recent and recall. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'one memory' signals a lookup of a known identifier rather than a search, but the description never says when to prefer this over recall, review, or list_recent. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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