Fetch a specific authorized memory with its evidence references and lifecycle to audit decision provenance.
Get one authorized memory with its evidence references and lifecycle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clearance | No | restricted | |
| memory_id | Yes | ||
| tenant_id | No | local | |
| groups_json | No | [] | |
| principal_id | No | local-user | |
| projects_json | No | [] |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially succeeds by signaling that access is authorization-gated and that the result includes evidence references and lifecycle information. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens for unauthorized access, or whether any side effects occur.
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 one compact, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It loses a point because it is so terse that it omits meaningful context about the parameters and authorization behavior, making it closer to minimal completeness than ideal conciseness.
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 has six parameters, many related to authorization context, and no output schema. The description does not clarify how the authorization-related parameters behave, what 'authorized' means in practice, or what structure the evidence references and lifecycle take. More context is needed for an agent to call this correctly.
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% and the description mentions none of the six parameters. It does not explain how memory_id, clearance, tenant_id, groups_json, principal_id, or projects_json affect the retrieval, leaving the agent to infer all parameter semantics from names and defaults.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the exact resource ('one authorized memory'), and adds scope beyond the tool name by specifying the returned content ('evidence references and lifecycle'). The word 'one' distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools such as company_memory_search and search_memory.
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 a single-memory retrieval use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over related tools like search_memory, trusted_memory_recall, or get_project_context. It also does not state when this tool should not be used or what conditions must hold (e.g., authorization requirements).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.