VAULT LIST: List all memory keys in your vault. Shows every piece of data you've stored, organized by category. Use this to see everything you've saved across sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Optional filter (e.g. 'task', 'config', 'prefs') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the listing nature, grouping by category, and session persistence, which gives some useful context. However, it omits the return format (keys vs values), ordering, pagination, and any permission or safety details, leaving significant gaps for a tool without annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded with the action and uses three short sentences. The second and third sentences overlap slightly ('Shows every piece of data' vs 'see everything you've saved'), which is minor redundancy, but overall it is tight and easy to scan.
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?
Given the low complexity, one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage adequately. It also summarizes the return as organized memory keys by category. It could more fully describe the response format or note limitations, but for a simple list tool it is mostly complete.
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%, and the single category parameter is documented with examples like 'task', 'config', and 'prefs' in the schema. The description adds no further semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all memory keys in your vault'), making the action clear. It also scopes the resource to everything stored across sessions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling memory_search tool, so an agent might not immediately see why to choose this over searching.
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 for use: 'Use this to see everything you've saved across sessions.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as memory_search, so it falls short of a 5.
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.