restore_memoryRestore a previously deleted memory. Call this only when the user explicitly asks to restore or undo a deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Optional user-facing reason for the deletion. | |
| memory_id | Yes | Exact XMemo memory reference shown by search or recall. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / metadata_jsonRemoved value: -{
- "default": "{}",
- "description": "Optional JSON object string with extra metadata for the operation.",
- "title": "Metadata Json",
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a key behavioral constraint ('previously deleted memory') and clarifies the intent ('undo a deletion'), which goes beyond the sparse annotations. However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the memory is already restored. With no meaningful annotations, the description carries the burden but remains thin on 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 two sentences: the first states the action, the second provides a usage condition. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and every word earns its place. This is a model of concise, well-structured documentation.
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 simple tool with a clear schema and output schema available, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the precondition and the exact trigger for use. It falls slightly short by not mentioning error scenarios or edge cases, but given the low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.
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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: 'reason' and 'memory_id'. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already fully documents the parameters.
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 clearly states the action: 'Restore a previously deleted memory.' It specifies the resource (memory) and the action (restore), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'forget' (deletion) and 'recall'/'search_memory' (retrieval). The title reinforces this but the description adds the 'previously deleted' qualifier, making the scope explicit.
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 second sentence provides explicit guidance: 'Call this only when the user explicitly asks to restore or undo a deletion.' This directly tells the agent when to use the tool, and the 'only when' phrase acts as an exclusion for all other scenarios. It effectively communicates the when and when-not, leaving no ambiguity about alternative use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple memory-retrieval tools (recall, search_memory, recall_context, read_memory, memory_overview) have overlapping purposes; detailed descriptions help but an agent could easily pick the wrong one. Similarly, ledger/open_ledger and todo/open_todo_board split text vs UI interaction, and forget overlaps with todo delete_all and ledger deletion.
Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (read_memory, update_memory, search_memory, open_ledger). However, several tools use bare nouns or verbs (forget, ledger, project, todo, recall, remember) and memory_overview is noun_noun, creating inconsistent conventions.
19 tools is on the heavy side for the apparent scope, and the surface includes several pairs that duplicate the same domain in text vs UI form (ledger/open_ledger, todo/open_todo_board). Still, the count is defensible given the combined memory, project, TODO, and ledger coverage.
Memory has full lifecycle coverage (remember, read, search/recall, update, forget, restore), and TODO and Ledger workflows are largely complete. Minor gaps exist—no explicit project deletion and no pure text list-projects tool—but core workflows do not dead-end.