midas-memory-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Memory state

memory_state

Read-only

Retrieve a project's current durable state: live decisions, constraints, facts, and preferences. Use to onboard or plan without relying on similarity search.

Instructions

The CURRENT durable state of a project/scope: the live (non-superseded) decisions, constraints, facts, and preferences, newest first. Use this to ONBOARD into a project or before planning — when a broad 'what's the current state?' has no single matching turn, so recall under-retrieves. Not a similarity search and no LLM. kinds: optional comma list (constraint,fact,preference,mission) to narrow; empty = all durable kinds.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kinds`	No
`limit`	No
`namespace`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that results are 'newest first' and 'live (non-superseded)', plus the note about no LLM/similarity search, providing useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is relatively concise but covers essential aspects: purpose, usage guidance, and one parameter explanation. Could be slightly tighter, but overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and one param. Missing details on limit/namespace are minor given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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%. The description explains the 'kinds' parameter (comma-separated list of options), but does not explain 'limit' or 'namespace', leaving gaps for the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool returns 'the current durable state of a project/scope: the live (non-superseded) decisions, constraints, facts, and preferences, newest first.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and differentiates from siblings by noting when 'recall under-retrieves'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to ONBOARD into a project or before planning — when a broad 'what's the current state?' has no single matching turn, so recall under-retrieves.' Also notes what it is not: 'Not a similarity search and no LLM.'

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