Skip to main content
Glama

Gnosem

by dev.gnosem

memory_list

List the user's most recent memories in reverse chronological order. Use for browsing or catching up on what the user's other model sessions have written recently. Same content/content_raw shape as memory_search. Optional filters (tags, written_by, session_id, since, until) narrow the listing at the SQL level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNoReturn original prose instead of the compressed form. Default false.
tagsNoOnly return memories containing ALL of these tags (AND semantics).
limitNoMax rows to return (1–200). Default 50.
sinceNoOnly return memories created at or after this ms-epoch timestamp.
untilNoOnly return memories created strictly before this ms-epoch timestamp.
cursorNoPagination cursor from a previous call's `cursor` field (ms epoch); returns rows older than this timestamp.
session_idNoOnly return memories with an exact session_id match.
written_byNoOnly return memories with an exact written_by match.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly by describing 'listing', but does not mention side effects, rate limits, or authorization needs. It does explain the SQL-level filtering and the shape similarity to memory_search.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and provide necessary detail without redundancy. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and 8 optional parameters, the description adequately covers the listing behavior, filter semantics, and references a sibling for shape. Missing details like default 'recent' window are minor.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds only a general note that filters narrow at the SQL level, which adds minimal extra meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'memories', and key behavior 'in reverse chronological order'. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_search and memory_write by specifying the listing orientation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly indicates use for 'browsing or catching up', which guides the agent on when to invoke. It mentions optional filters for narrowing, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives.

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

All Gnosem toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: write (single/bulk), search, list, forget, supersede. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'memory_' prefix and verb pattern, using snake_case throughout. Naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

6 tools is well-scoped for a memory management server, covering essential operations without being excessive or insufficient.

Completeness4/5

Covers write (single/bulk), search, list, soft-delete, and supersede. Minor gap: no direct single-item retrieval by ID, but search can serve that purpose.

Resources