Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ctx-memory

ctx-memory

by parth0072
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

recall

Search saved memory by keyword to retrieve preferences, decisions, tasks, notes, or facts across sessions and models.

Instructions

Search memory by keywords.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "recall"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
limitNo
queryYes
projectNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. 'Search' implies a non-destructive read, but there is no statement about whether results are scoped to a project, how results are ranked or paginated, whether an empty result is a failure, or what the limit applies to.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler and the core concept is front-loaded, which is structurally good. However, the brevity is the result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it does not earn a 4.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. An agent cannot tell how to scope the search by kind or project, nor what the limit does, from anything provided.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, and the description only gestures at the query concept via 'keywords'. The kind enum (fact/preference/decision/task/note), the project scope filter, and the limit default/max of 5/30 are never explained, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Search') and resource ('memory') plus the matching mechanism ('by keywords'), so the agent knows this is a retrieval tool rather than a write. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling get_context, which is presumably also a memory-read tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use recall versus get_context, list_projects, or other siblings, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and one-line description.

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