Retrieve recent project memories from a local SQLite store, filtered by project, category, session lookback, or minimum importance for coding-agent context.
Get recent memories with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| sessions_back | No | ||
| min_importance | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.18.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'Get' but says nothing about ordering, default window behavior, whether results are paginated, or how 'recent' is actually bounded (sessions_back).
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 redundancy; it is efficient. The brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight editing, but the structure itself is clean.
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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this one-line description leaves the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently. The filters, the recency window, and the return shape are all unspecified.
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 five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Optional filters' vaguely gestures at project/category/min_importance but leaves limit, sessions_back, and min_importance thresholds completely unexplained.
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 clear verb and resource ('Get recent memories'), so an agent knows this retrieves time-ordered memories rather than searching them. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling memory_search, which an agent must infer is the query-driven alternative.
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' hints that filtering is possible but never says when to prefer this tool over memory_search or memory_topics, nor what the filters select. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.