Retrieve relevant agent memory to inject as untrusted context before crafting a response, enabling role-aware recall across sessions.
Recall memory and return untrusted injectable context before the host answers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | ||
| turn_id | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| user_content | Yes | ||
| evidence_mode | No | auto | |
| user_message_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the returned context is 'untrusted' and 'injectable,' and indicates a retrieval-style operation via 'Recall memory.' However, it does not clarify side effects, required prior steps, or how evidence_mode affects 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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core operation and timing efficiently, though the phrase 'untrusted injectable context' is dense and could be clearer.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools with overlapping concerns, this one-line description is insufficient. It omits how the returned context should be handled, what evidence_mode does, how this relates to tmcra_turn_commit, and what prior conditions must exist before calling.
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 compensate, but it adds no parameter-level meaning. While the parameter names and titles are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not explain key fields like user_content, evidence_mode, scope, or agent_id, nor how they shape the recall and returned context.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Recall memory and return untrusted injectable context before the host answers.' It conveys the basic operation and timing. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tmcra_recall tool, so the differentiation is incomplete.
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 phrase 'before the host answers' gives useful timing context, implying this should be called at the start of a turn to prepare memory context. But the description provides no explicit guidance about when to use this vs. tmcra_recall, tmcra_turn_commit, or other siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.