recall-kit

memory_conflicts

Detect pairs of current memories that disagree, ordered newer first, and get a suggested fix to resolve each conflict.

Instructions

Pairs of current memories that appear to disagree, newer first, with a suggested fix.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "memory_conflicts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two behaviors: results are ordered newest-first and each pair includes a suggested remedy. It does not say how 'appear to disagree' is detected (heuristic confidence), whether the operation is read-only/safe, or whether the suggested fix should be applied blindly. Useful but incomplete disclosure for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that front-loads the core resource before adding ordering and output detail. Every clause (scope, order, suggested fix) adds information; there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Zero parameters and an output schema mean return values need not be spelled out, so the structural burden is low. However, for a heuristic conflict-detection tool the description never explains what counts as a disagreement or how reliable the pairing is, leaving the agent without enough context to interpret or act on results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and scope: 'pairs of current memories that appear to disagree', plus ordering ('newer first') and payload ('a suggested fix'). An agent can tell this apart from memory_recall or memory_history because it returns disagreement pairs rather than memories or events, though the verb itself is implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisible conditions, and no pointer to the natural follow-up tools such as memory_correct (to apply the suggested fix) or memory_forget. The only guidance is implicit in the word 'conflicts'; the agent must infer that this is a diagnostic/review tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server