Agent Memory Engine

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

memory_batch_inspect

Fetch complete High-Density Identity Cards for multiple folders and files in one call, enabling agents to inspect many code targets together without separate queries.

Instructions

Fetch complete High-Density Identity Cards for multiple folders and files in a single call (Multi-Query).

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": {
      "targets": "<targets>"
    },
    "name": "memory_batch_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`targets`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says what is fetched. It does not disclose read-only behavior, permission requirements, partial-failure handling, result ordering, or limits on the number of targets, all of which matter for a batch fetch.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action, result, and batch scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for an unannotated batch tool with one loosely documented parameter, the description should clarify target format, batch constraints, and failure behavior; those gaps keep it at minimum viability.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying that targets represent multiple folders and files, but it does not specify the expected string format, whether paths or IDs are accepted, or any size limits for the array.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('High-Density Identity Cards') and clarifies that it handles multiple folders and files in one call. It is clear enough to distinguish this batch-inspection tool from single-target siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for multiple folders and files in a single call (Multi-Query)' implies this tool is for batched lookups rather than single-target calls. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over individual inspection tools or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server