recall_ingestRead new or changed conversations into the bank, skipping unchanged files; runs only after the owner enables reading.
Read new or changed conversations into the bank (incremental: unchanged files are skipped). Refuses unless the owner turned reading on (navig recall enable).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sources | No | claude_code, codex, session_audit, chats (default: all). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: unchanged files are skipped and the tool refuses unless the owner enabled reading. It does not explain what destructive effects may occur, but it contributes useful incremental and permission behavior.
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?
The description is two tight sentences with no wasted words. Critical details, incremental behavior and the enablement prerequisite, are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter, and annotations already cover the safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description does not say what is returned or what errors occur after ingestion, leaving a modest completeness gap.
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% and the schema fully documents the sources parameter, including allowed values and the default. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: ingest new or changed conversations into the bank. It also clarifies the incremental scope, letting an agent distinguish it from retrieval siblings like recall_search and recall_ask.
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?
Usage is implied: use this to read new or changed conversations into the bank. It gives an important prerequisite (owner must have enabled reading) but does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.