Ontonym

List objects

list_objects

Read-onlyIdempotent

ENUMERATE objects in a graph — the population, not the best matches.

`memory` is the graph's slug from list_my_memories. Narrow it three ways, all
optional: `class_name` to ONE exact class by canonical snake_case name
(from list_classes — descendants NOT included), `class_id` for the same
filter when you already hold the id, or `owned_by` to list what one
PERSON object owns (approved ownerships only). Omit all three to walk
every class. `limit` defaults to 50. Each row carries `status` — defer on
'unapproved'; `recall` reports how much is waiting for review.

This walks the graph in storage order; it does not rank by meaning. When
the question is "what do we know about X?" use semantic_search — it
matches on meaning and keywords and can inline each hit's first ring with
expand=1. Use list_objects when you want the population itself:
everything of one class, a count, a sweep, one person's responsibilities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`memory`	Yes
`class_id`	No
`owned_by`	No
`class_name`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 11, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / class_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Class Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / owned_by

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Owned By"
+}

First observedSep 11, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses storage-order traversal (not ranked by meaning), that each row carries a status field, that unapproved rows should be deferred, that recall shows pending review volume, and that class_name excludes descendants and owned_by returns approved ownerships only — rich behavioral context the annotations cannot provide.

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 the key distinction, then organized by filter, then by sibling routing. Despite being longer than average, every sentence earns its place given five parameters at 0% schema coverage and the need to route against semantic_search.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still gives the minimum return context an agent needs (status field, unapproved deferral, recall count). Combined with the exhaustive parameter guidance and sibling routing, nothing required to call this tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: memory is the slug from list_my_memories, class_name is one exact canonical snake_case name from list_classes (descendants NOT included), class_id is the same filter by id, owned_by lists approved ownerships for one PERSON, and limit defaults to 50. All five parameters are explained with format and semantics.

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 ('ENUMERATE objects in a graph') and immediately distinguishes the result from ranked semantic search ('the population, not the best matches'). An agent can tell this apart from semantic_search and list_classes 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (semantic_search) and the condition that selects it ('what do we know about X?' vs 'the population itself: everything of one class, a count, a sweep, one person's responsibilities'). It also tells the agent when to defer ('defer on unapproved') and how to narrow filters.

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

All Ontonym 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.

Resources

Need Help?