Retrieve encrypted memories most similar to a query across permitted scopes, so agents can use relevant stored context without exposing plaintext.
Recall encrypted memories most similar to a query across permitted scopes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| scopes | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add two useful facts — memories are encrypted and results are constrained to 'permitted scopes' (an authorization filter) — but it says nothing about result ordering, default limit behavior, or what happens when no scopes are permitted.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter and scoping detail noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool still has three undocumented parameters and zero annotations. The single sentence does not cover the 'limit' semantics, the expected format of 'scopes', or result ordering, which an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly.
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 must compensate for all three parameters. It clarifies 'query' as semantic similarity search and hints that 'scopes' is an access-permission list, but the 'limit' parameter (default 5) is never mentioned anywhere, leaving a third of the input surface undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Recall ... memories') plus a meaningful qualifier ('encrypted', 'most similar to a query'). Read against the sibling remember_fact, the retrieve-vs-store distinction is evident without opening either schema, though the tool never names the sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it has a query and wants semantically similar prior memories. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of limits or scope prerequisites, and no routing guidance against remember_fact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.