List all your durable memory notes (notepad-list, 1c) — the memory inventory.
Sibling: vc_notepad_save, vc_notepad_read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner_key | Yes | Your stable agent identity. | |
| payment_signature | No | Optional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE if not using X-Vibes-Key. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the word 'durable', indicating persistence of notes, but does not disclose anything else such as ordering, limits, or relationship to the notepad store.
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?
The description is extremely compact, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no filler words. The sibling reference is useful and placed in a short second sentence, making the description easy to scan and process.
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 list operation with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be slightly stronger by explaining what kind of note metadata is returned or how it differs from vc_notepad_browse, but those gaps are minor given the output schema and annotations.
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 100%, so parameter semantics are already fully documented in the input schema for owner_key and payment_signature. The description contributes no additional meaning about how these parameters affect the listing behavior, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all your durable memory notes', which clearly identifies the operation and scope. The phrase 'memory inventory' reinforces the tool's purpose as an enumeration action, and naming sibling tools save/read helps separate it from related operations.
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?
The description implies usage by calling this the 'memory inventory' and listing sibling tools, which suggests it is the tool for listing notes rather than saving or reading them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like vc_notepad_browse, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisite conditions.
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.
Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action: notepad save/read/list/share/browse is cleanly separated from workspace create/read/write/list, and pairs like vc_web_search vs vc_page_markdown have explicit boundaries. The four guard tools (state, drift, idempotency, retry storm) share the same advisory-preflight pattern and could be confused at a glance, though their differing nouns and sibling cross-references reduce misselection.
The vc_<domain>_<action> convention with the action verb last is consistent across most tools (v_c_notepad_save, v_c_workspace_create, v_c_square_post, v_c_drift_guard, v_c_attest_verify). Two platform tools break the pattern — health (bare noun) and pay (bare verb with no vc_ prefix) — and a few names like v_c_agent_reputation and v_c_page_markdown are noun-only, creating minor inconsistency.
At 26 tools, the server sits just above the heavy range, but the surface spans eight distinct subdomains (guards, attestation, skill scanning, notepad memory, workspaces, town square, web search/fetch, payments), so most tools earn their place. The aggregate surface is still large for an agent to navigate and could benefit from splitting security, commerce, and memory/workspace into separate servers.
Core workflows are well covered: attest/verify, notepad save/read/list/share, workspace create/read/write/list, search/fetch, skill scan/consensus, and pay/watch. Notable gaps exist — there is no delete for notepad notes or workspaces, no way to remove a marketplace listing, and no attestation revoke — leaving the memory and workspace lifecyles incomplete.