List memories saved under the given code, optionally substring-filtered by query. Session-gated for symmetry with remember.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| session_token | No | Optional. The SESSION_TOKEN emitted by bootstrap_session. Pass it here when your client cannot set a per-call Authorization: Bearer header. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses session-gating, which is a behavioral trait, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, pagination, or error behavior. No contradiction with annotations (none exist).
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?
One concise sentence with a front-loaded action ('List memories'), an optional condition ('optionally substring-filtered by query'), and a session context remark. No redundant wording; every phrase contributes.
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 read-list tool with no output schema, it covers the main purpose and query filtering, but omits details on 'limit' (e.g., default, max), response format, and potential errors. It could be more complete given low schema coverage.
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 coverage is 25% – only session_token has a description. The description adds meaning for 'code' (memories under the code) and 'query' (substring-filtered), but does not explain 'limit'. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.
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 'List memories saved under the given code' – a specific verb and resource. It also mentions 'Session-gated for symmetry with remember,' which differentiates it from other listing tools like list_blobs or list_collection by tying it to the remember counterpart.
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?
It clearly implies when to use it (to retrieve memories saved under a code, optionally filtered by query) and references 'symmetry with remember' as context. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the action and session requirement are clear.
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 have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but a few boundaries are fuzzy: leave_message vs ask_human vs leave_comment, and list_content vs list_collection could confuse an agent at first glance. Overall, the descriptions are thorough enough to disambiguate.
The naming convention is predominantly snake_case with verb_noun structure (list_content, read_blob, upsert_skill). Minor deviations exist such as the mysloodsiewnia_* prefix and British spelling in synthesise_persona_patterns, but the pattern is highly recognizable and readable.
At 41 tools, the surface area is very large for a single MCP server and exceeds the 'heavy' threshold. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the sheer number makes the server feel bloated and harder to navigate; many tools could be grouped or pruned without losing core functionality.
The server covers a broad domain: content read/list, personas, skills management, vault CRUD (except update/delete intentionally), provenance, licensing, memory, and async question/narada workflows. Minor gaps exist like no tool to cancel a narada job or update a memory, but these are workable and the core workflows are well supported.