continental_memoriesKeys, sizes and timestamps of your memories (never content), with your quota. Optional prefix filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 200 | |
| prefix | No | Only keys starting with this | |
| api_key | No | Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your key, when this client cannot send it as an Authorization header (e.g. a chat connector). Same rights as the header; the header wins if both are present.",
+ "pattern": "^tc_(live|visit)_[a-f0-9]{64}$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Default 200"Input schema / properties / prefix / descriptionAdded value: +"Only keys starting with this"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the 'never content' guarantee and quota information, which are not in annotations. No auth details beyond the schema, but the added behavior is useful and non-contradictory.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core return fields, then quota and filter. Every phrase contributes, with zero redundancy or filler.
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-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys return fields (keys, sizes, timestamps, quota) and the optional filter. It doesn't detail pagination or error cases, but the limit parameter and full schema coverage mitigate this.
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 100%, and each parameter (limit, prefix, api_key) is already well-described in the schema. The tool description only restates the optional prefix filter, adding no new parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clearly states it lists metadata (keys, sizes, timestamps) for the user's memories, with quota, and explicitly notes it never returns content. This distinguishes it from content-returning siblings like continental_recall, continental_export, and continental_peek.
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?
Provides clear context: use when you need memory metadata and quota, not content. The 'never content' note implicitly routes to content tools, but no sibling comparisons or explicit when-not conditions are given.
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.