Search long-term memory across all Claude Code sessions to retrieve relevant historical context. Provide a query and optional limit to find past information and enable cross-session continuity.
搜索长期记忆
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 最大结果数 (默认5) | |
| query | Yes | 搜索查询 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'search long-term memory' and provides no details about read-only semantics, result format, pagination, or side effects.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core purpose is front-loaded. While it is notably sparse, it avoids redundancy and is structurally efficient.
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?
With two parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. An agent would not know what results look like, how the search behaves, or how to differentiate this tool from the similarly purposed lcm_search.
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?
The input schema already documents both parameters (query and limit) with descriptions, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('search') and target resource ('long-term memory'), so the tool's basic function is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling lcm_search, which likely targets the same resource, so it is not fully differentiated.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use memvid_search versus alternative memory tools such as lcm_search, lcm_list_summaries, or memvid_store. No conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.