MemScope

Review queue

review_queue

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the person wants to work through the memories waiting for their review: flagged saves whose audience needs a human decision, sent to them as author or team/project owner. Each item has id, preview, scope, sensitivity, date, citation and review_kind ('audience': needs an audience; 'setup_gap': a sensitive topic not yet mapped to a team; 'instructions': reads like planted AI instructions; 'fyi': flagged only for low classification confidence). Resolve one with review_memory. list_memories filter 'needs_review' shows every flagged memory the person can read instead.

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": "review_queue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Items to return, 1-100 (default 20).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real substance on top: the authorization scoping (sent to them as author or team/project owner), the item taxonomy with meaning for each review_kind, and the follow-up tool that mutates state. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or what an empty queue looks like, so it stops short of fully transparent.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then scope, then item shape, then resolution path and alternative — a logical order with no filler sentences. The long parenthetical enumeration of review_kind values is information-dense but makes the paragraph heavy; it earns its place yet could be tightened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, yet the description still names the fields an agent will see and decodes the review_kind enum. Between the annotations, the schema, and the description's scoping and routing guidance, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% (the single `limit` parameter is documented as 'Items to return, 1-100 (default 20)'). The description adds no meaning about the limit or about a default page size in the queue context. With the schema doing all the work, the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('work through the memories waiting for their review') plus the exact scope: flagged saves where the person is author or team/project owner. It also enumerates the fields of each item and defines the four review_kind values, so an agent knows precisely what the tool returns. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling list_memories and review_memory.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the person wants to work through the memories waiting for their review'), names the resolution tool ('Resolve one with `review_memory`'), and names the alternative for a broader listing ('`list_memories` filter 'needs_review''). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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

All MemScope tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?