Skip to main content
Glama
mp-juns

universal-research-mcp

by mp-juns
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

memory_fetch_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch exact source lines as verified evidence for a research event, with optional SHA-256 content matching and surrounding context for auditability.

Instructions

Fetch an exact event locator; keep display context outside its reference.

Event-less fetches are registered-file diagnostics only and cannot satisfy evidence eligibility. Changed-source diagnostics retain the registered reference even when the current file is shorter than that reference.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
end_lineNo
event_idNo
start_lineYes
context_linesNo
expected_sha256No
allow_mismatched_contentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.3
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "memory_fetch_evidenceDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_mismatched_content
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Allow Mismatched Content",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / event_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Event Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / expected_sha256
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Expected Sha256"
+}
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral constraints: event-less fetches are diagnostics only and cannot satisfy evidence eligibility, and changed-source diagnostics retain the registered reference even when the current file is shorter. This is genuine behavioral nuance, though the wording is somewhat cryptic.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and avoids restating the schema, but the densely packed jargon ('display context', 'reference', 'changed-source diagnostics') makes it less accessible. It is concise in length but not in clarity, and the second sentence introduces complex domain concepts without setup.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With seven parameters, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the expected inputs, the return value, or the matching/eligibility semantics well enough for an agent to invoke this tool reliably in novel situations.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates with no parameter-specific explanation. None of the seven parameters (path, start_line, end_line, event_id, context_lines, expected_sha256, allow_mismatched_content) are described or even referenced clearly, leaving the agent without enough semantic grounding to choose values correctly.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The first sentence 'Fetch an exact event locator' conveys a specific action and resource, but 'event locator' is undefined and the phrase 'keep display context outside its reference' is unclear. It does not meaningfully differentiate from siblings like memory_search_candidates beyond the word 'exact'.

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 description gives a conditional note about event-less fetches being 'registered-file diagnostics only', but it never says when to prefer this tool over memory_search_candidates or memory_latest, nor does it provide exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage context from the tool name and schema.

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