Retrieve a voice memory's complete record, including its transcript, by providing the memory UUID.
Get the full record (including transcript) for one memory by its UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memory_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content scope by noting the full record includes the transcript, but says nothing about not-found behavior, permission requirements, or response size for a transcript payload.
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 the retrieval key (UUID) at the end and no filler. Every clause 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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by indicating the return includes the transcript, which is the key expectation for this call. For a read-only single-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.
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, and it does partially by identifying the parameter as a UUID that identifies exactly one memory. It does not state where that UUID comes from, but the format and cardinality meaning are conveyed beyond the bare 'string' schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (voice memory record), and scopes it to a single memory retrieved by UUID, which clearly separates it from the sibling list/search tools. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in-text.
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?
Usage is only implied: you need a UUID, so an agent infers this is a follow-up to search_voice_memories or get_recent_memories rather than a discovery tool. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any mention of how to obtain the memory_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.