Recall past decisions, SOPs, and atomic memories from persistent Synapse memory via hybrid semantic and BM25 search, with results packed to a token budget.
Recall memories, SOPs, and past architectural decisions from Synapse Memory Engine using hybrid semantic vector and BM25 search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query, topic, concept, or technical question. | |
| budget | No | Max token budget for recalled context (default 300). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the hybrid vector+BM25 retrieval mechanism and that results are bounded by a token budget, but it does not state that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, what the result structure or ranking looks like, or any permission requirements.
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?
A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the target resources before the retrieval mechanism. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what is searched and how, but leaves the return format and result characteristics (snippets, scores, ordering) unexplained. The omission is a meaningful gap for a recall tool whose output shape matters.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the token budget default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Recall') and concrete resource types (memories, SOPs, past architectural decisions), plus the retrieval mechanism. This clearly distinguishes it as the read-side counterpart to synapse_retain and synapse_record_episode, though it never names the siblings explicitly.
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?
The description implies when to use it (retrieving prior context) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over synapse_get_stats or how it relates to the write-side siblings. Usage is inferable from the verb and resource list rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.