memory_episodes_listBrowse the episodic timeline (shared within the org by default).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | Optional filter — restrict to one agent's episodes. Default (None) returns every agent's timeline in the org. | |
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | Lower bound on created_at | |
| topic | No | Substring match on topic | |
| until | No | Upper bound on created_at |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Browse' implies a non-mutating list operation and the org-wide default scope is a useful non-obvious detail. However, it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, or what an 'episode' actually represents.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficient, though slightly too terse to fully orient an agent to the episodic-timeline concept.
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?
An output schema exists and most parameters are documented, so return values and filters do not need to be repeated. Still, with no annotations and many sibling memory tools, the description could usefully state that episodes are returned in chronological order and that this is the go-to tool for browsing the org's episodic history.
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 high (80%), and the schema already documents the main parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the default org scope, which the agent parameter already covers.
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 identifies a concrete read action ('Browse') and a distinct resource ('episodic timeline'), and it adds a useful scope qualifier ('shared within the org by default'). It clearly reads as a list/history tool, though it does not explicitly route away from related memory tools like memory_recall.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_recall, memory_session_get, or memory_action_log_list. The only contextual hint is the default org-wide scope, which is behavioral rather than a usage criterion.
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.
With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).
The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.