memory_key_facts_retrieveSearch persistent memory for key facts matching a query and return relevant stored information to support recall across sessions.
Search persistent memory for key facts matching a query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of facts to return | |
| query | Yes | Search query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the word 'persistent' about scope and says nothing about match semantics (keyword vs semantic), ranking, or result ordering, so it contributes little beyond the structured data.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is padded or repeated from the title or schema.
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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the essentials are present, but the description omits match semantics and any sibling differentiation that an agent facing many overlapping search tools would need.
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 both 'query' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning (e.g., supported query syntax or default limit behavior), 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 (search) and resource (persistent key facts) with a scoping qualifier (matching a query). It is clearly a read/retrieval operation, distinguishing it from the memory_key_facts_remember/forget/update siblings by implication, though it never names them 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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over memory_key_facts_stats or the many recall_* search tools available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.