Retrieve full details of active project memories by ID, returning only current records and flagging any requested IDs that did not resolve.
Get full details of ACTIVE memories by IDs. Superseded / archived rows are never returned; requested ids that did not resolve come back in "missing".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: only ACTIVE rows are returned, superseded/archived rows are silently excluded, and unresolved ids are surfaced in a 'missing' field. However, it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, ordering, or the 200-id cap, so the disclosure is partial.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The quoted 'missing' is slightly awkward but earns its place by naming the exact output field.
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?
For a 2-parameter lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the basics are covered (what is returned, what is excluded, how unresolved ids appear), but the undocumented 'project' parameter and the absence of any result-shape or ordering note leave gaps.
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 should compensate, but it only gestures at the 'ids' parameter and explains nothing about 'project' (scoping/filtering behavior is entirely unstated). It also omits the minItems=1/maxItems=200 bounds that an agent would want surfaced.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get full details of ACTIVE memories by IDs'), and the 'by IDs' framing implies ID-based lookup rather than a query tool. It never names a sibling (e.g. memory_search) to contrast against, so differentiation 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_search or memory_recent, nor on where the ids are expected to come from. The only contextual statement is a data constraint (archived rows are never returned), which is behavior, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.