Retrieve the full content of a specific core-memory entry by key, enabling agents to access shared cross-session knowledge.
Return the full content of a single core-memory entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| memory_scope | No | project |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.1Input schema / properties / memory_scopeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "project",
+ "title": "Memory Scope",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.13.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds only the notion of 'full content', which hints that results are untruncated, but says nothing about missing-key behavior or scope handling.
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 no filler; nothing redundant. Its brevity shades into under-specification rather than true conciseness, but every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple read. However, with two parameters at 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need to fill.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and does not. The required 'key' is only implied by 'entry', and the 'memory_scope' parameter (default 'project') is never mentioned despite determining which store is queried.
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 gives a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full content of a single core-memory entry'), which clearly separates it from core_list, core_set, and core_remove. It does not name the siblings explicitly, but the singular 'single entry' vs. list/remove/set is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this over core_list or search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that 'get one entry' maps to this tool from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.