AiAkiv Memory

list_partner_links

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the org links the caller can read through, and whether each works now.

Use this when the user asks which partner teams they can read, or when a link
tool returned an error and the reason needs checking. Do not use it to read
partner content; the partner tools (`search_partner_memory`,
`find_partner_memory_connections`, `query_partner_memory_graph`,
`get_partner_memory_content`) do that.

Read-only and local: it keeps answering while the partner org is down, which
is when its answer matters most.

Returns:
    `{status, count, provided_link_count, links: [{link_id, partner_org_id,
    status, usable, blocked_reason, contract_version, reconsent: {mine,
    partner}, expires_at, created_at}]}`. `link_id` is what every partner
    tool takes, and `usable` says which links will answer.
    `blocked_reason` names what to fix: `link_not_active` (suspended,
    pending, or revoked), `contract_version_too_old` (both owners
    re-consent — `reconsent` says who is missing), `link_expired`,
    `remote_org_unavailable`, or `principal_not_active` (this direction is
    closed).

    Links run one way, and the ones **this** org provides are not listed:
    they open our memory to the other team, so there is nothing here to read
    and nothing to fix. `provided_link_count` (sent with the list) says how
    many exist — they are managed in the console, not through these tools.
    Passing one of their ids to a remote tool is refused with
    `principal_not_active`. An empty list is an honest empty, not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses the key operational trait that this call is local and keeps answering while the partner org is down, explains that an empty list is a valid result, and enumerates blocked_reason values with their remediation meaning. This is real behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage/exclusions, then behavioral note, then returns — a logical progression. Despite its length, every section carries distinct information (routing, resilience, blocked_reason decoding, one-way link semantics) with no filler.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description supplies the semantic layer it lacks: what each status value means, that provided links are deliberately excluded and managed in the console, and that passing a provided id to a remote tool yields principal_not_active. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or act on the result is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the description instead invests in return-field semantics (link_id, usable, provided_link_count). That is a 4 baseline rather than a 5 because no parameter-level meaning exists to add.

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+resource ('List the org links the caller can read through') plus the added scope of whether each is currently usable. It cleanly distinguishes itself from the four named partner-content siblings, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit positive triggers ('when the user asks which partner teams they can read, or when a link tool returned an error and the reason needs checking') and an explicit exclusion naming the alternative tools that should be used to read partner content instead. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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

All AiAkiv Memory tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.