Ontonym

List objects

list_objects

Read-onlyIdempotent

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

`memory` is the 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 memory 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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: storage-order traversal, no semantic ranking, exclusion of descendants for class_name, approved-ownerships-only filtering, and the meaning of status ('defer on unapproved') and recall ('how much is waiting for review'). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs that annotations do not convey.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then proceeds through parameters, behavior, and routing to alternatives. It is well organized with clear paragraph breaks and no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description fully supplies the remaining context: parameter semantics, traversal order, status interpretation, and when to choose a sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters, and it meets it. It explains memory as a slug from list_my_memories, class_name as an exact canonical snake_case class name with descendants excluded, class_id as an equivalent filter, owned_by as a PERSON ownership filter, and limit's default of 50. Every parameter receives functional meaning beyond the raw schema.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'ENUMERATE objects in a memory — the population, not the best matches.' It explicitly differentiates itself from semantic_search and recall by framing this tool as population enumeration rather than ranking or matching, so an agent can tell it apart from its siblings immediately.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use semantic_search when the question is 'what do we know about X?' and use list_objects when the goal is the population itself. It also names the upstream tools that provide valid inputs (list_my_memories for the memory slug, list_classes for class_name), leaving little to inference.

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

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?