Read session memory entries with optional filters by type, file, query, or limit to retrieve relevant coding gotchas, decisions, and notes from your repo.
AMP: read session memory entries with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. It conveys read semantics through the verb "read" but says nothing about what is returned (fields, ordering), default behavior with no filters, or the 200-entry cap enforced by the schema — real gaps for a memory-retrieval tool.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being paired with useful detail.
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?
Four parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema means the description is the only source of semantics — and it supplies almost none. An agent cannot confidently choose filter values or predict results from this definition.
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% across all four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what "file" scopes to, whether "query" is substring or semantic matching, how "query" differs from "file", or what "limit" defaults to — the enum of seven memory types is likewise never mentioned.
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 names a specific verb (read) and resource (session memory entries), so an agent can tell it retrieves rather than mutates. However it does not distinguish this from the sibling amp_search, which by name also retrieves memory entries — the read/search boundary is left to inference.
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?
"With optional filters" implies a retrieval use case but never says when to prefer this over amp_search, amp_resume, or amp_bookmark, nor when filtering is unnecessary. No prerequisites, no exclusion cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.