memtomem

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mem_recall

Recall memories created within a date range, filtering by source, tags, namespace, or scope and returning chunks newest first.

Instructions

Recall memories created within a date range.

Returns chunks ordered by creation date (newest first).

Args:
    since: Inclusive start date (YYYY, YYYY-MM, YYYY-MM-DD, or ISO datetime)
    until: Exclusive end date — same formats as *since*
    source_filter: Filter by source file path (substring match, or glob pattern with *, ?, [])
    tag_filter: Comma-separated tags, matching ANY; applied before *limit*.
    namespace: Namespace scope — single, comma list, or glob ("project:*"), not both.
    limit: Maximum number of chunks to return (default 20)
    output_format: Output format — "compact" (default, human-readable) or "structured"
        (JSON for machine parsing, includes trust-UX hints as a "hints" field).
    scope: ADR-0011 scope-axis filter — single, comma list (``user,project_local``),
        or glob (``project_*``), not both. Omitted, the default merge applies:
        in-project recalls return ``user`` + that project's tiers, out-of-project
        ``user`` only.

Examples::

    mem_recall(since="2025-01", until="2025-03")
    mem_recall(since="2025-06-01", source_filter="notes")
    mem_recall(namespace="work", limit=10)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`scope`	No
`since`	No
`until`	No
`namespace`	No
`tag_filter`	No
`output_format`	No	compact
`source_filter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description does real disclosure work: it states results are ordered newest-first, that tag_filter is applied before limit, and — critically — the default scope-merge behavior (user + project tiers in-project, user only out-of-project). It omits any permission/auth notes and doesn't say what happens when since/until are omitted.

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 one-line summary and return-ordering statement are front-loaded, followed by a clean Args list and concrete examples. It runs long, but nearly every line adds operative detail; only the ADR-0011 reference is jargon an agent can't act on.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return shapes needn't be spelled out, and the description still covers ordering, default limit, and scope defaults. The notable gap is behavior when all filters are null — it's unclear whether that means 'all memories' or requires since/until.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: every one of the 8 parameters gets meaning beyond its name, including accepted date formats, glob/substring matching semantics, ANY-tag matching order relative to limit, mutual exclusivity of single-vs-glob for scope, and the hints field in structured output.

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: 'Recall memories created within a date range', with return ordering clarified. However, it frames the tool narrowly as a date-range recall even though scope/source/tag/namespace filters make it a general listing tool, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like mem_list or mem_search.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The Examples block shows three call patterns but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to mem_search, mem_list, or mem_read. An agent must infer that this is the unfiltered-by-content listing tool rather than a search tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server