Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
recall-kit

recall-kit

by sibrahimpa1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

memory_history

Retrieve all versions of a memory, oldest first, with their git commits to trace changes and verify historical edits.

Instructions

All versions of a memory (oldest first) with their git commits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add real context by stating the ordering (oldest first) and that each entry is tied to a git commit. It omits whether the call is read-only (only implied), how large histories are bounded or paginated, and what happens for an unknown or forgotten id.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence fragment with the ordering detail parenthetically front-loaded next to the noun it modifies — no filler. It is slightly telegraphic, reading more like a return-value note than a full instruction.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple (one required id) and has an output schema, so return-field details are legitimately out of scope; the description supplies ordering, which the output schema may not convey. Only the lack of any usage guidance keeps it from being fully complete for this low-complexity read tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter 'id' has no schema description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. Saying 'of a memory' does establish that the id identifies a memory rather than a project or commit, but it gives no format, prefix, or error semantics for an invalid id.

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 the specific resource and scope: every version of a single memory, returned in chronological order and paired with git commits. That clearly separates it from a current-content recall tool, though it never names a sibling to route against explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as memory_recall for current state. The reader must infer that this is an audit/history tool from the phrase 'all versions' and 'git commits'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools