memory_listList your stored keys with metadata, without returning the values.
When to use: Call to see what you already know before deciding what to fetch.
Price: US$0.000500 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| prefix | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety; the description adds the useful behavioral detail that values are not returned and that metadata is included. It does not describe pagination, metadata fields, or ordering, so it adds moderate but not rich behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sections carry exactly the necessary information: what the tool returns, when to use it, and cost. The main behavior is front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list operation with two optional parameters, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage context, and value-exclusion behavior. It omits the exact metadata fields and any pagination behavior, but the low complexity and readOnlyHint make the definition adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain how 'limit' or 'prefix' affect the result. The parameter names and schema constraints are self-evident, but the description provides no additional meaning to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a precise operation: listing stored keys with metadata and explicitly excluding values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_get and memory_search, which fetch content rather than an inventory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'When to use: Call to see what you already know before deciding what to fetch' gives clear situational guidance aligned with the read-only inventory purpose. It implies the alternative of fetching values, though it does not explicitly name memory_get or memory_search as the tools for that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct resource or action: memory operations are clearly separated from inbox operations, await/park/resume are differentiated by whether the process stays alive or hands off state, and administrative calls like capabilities, whoami, and credit_deposit have non-overlapping purposes. No two tools appear interchangeable.
Most resource operations follow an object_verb pattern (memory_get, hook_create, inbox_list), but core primitives like await, park, resume, and signal are bare verbs, while capabilities and whoami are bare nouns. The style is consistently lowercase snake_case and readable, but the naming convention is mixed rather than uniform.
At 16 tools the set is just past the typical well-scoped range, but each tool maps to a distinct platform capability: identity, inbox, memory, hooks/signals, parking, and billing. It feels slightly heavy rather than bloated.
The core agent workflow is covered end to end: identity creation, credit deposit, hook creation, awaiting triggers, inbox reading, durable memory, and the park/resume round-trip. Minor gaps remain—there is no hook list/delete and no way to cancel a parked state—but they can be worked around rather than blocking.