List recent memories and documents in Memwyre.
Args:
limit: Number of items to return (default 10).
offset: Pagination offset (default 0).
workspace_name: Optional name of the workspace directory. Pass this so that items are filtered by this project workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| workspace_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates recency, pagination, and workspace filtering, but it does not clarify the sort semantics of 'recent', whether the operation is read-only, or the default behavior when workspace_name is omitted. These are moderate gaps for a listing tool.
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 appropriately sized: one purpose sentence followed by a clean, concise Args block. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 low-complexity listing tool with an output schema and three optional parameters, the description covers purpose, filtering, and pagination sufficiently. It leaves 'recent' undefined and does not specify ordering guarantees, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.
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 0%, and the description compensates by defining all three parameters. It adds real meaning beyond the schema, especially for workspace_name ('name of the workspace directory', 'filtered by this project workspace'), though limit and offset mostly restate their defaults.
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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent memories and documents'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling search/get tools, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 the tool is used to retrieve recent items and explains when workspace_name should be passed for filtering. It does not state when to prefer this tool over search_memwyre/search_by_date or single-item get_memory/get_document, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.
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 map cleanly to distinct operations such as semantic search, date search, inbox approval/discard, and tag listing. The main ambiguity is between save_memory and upsert_memory, both of which can create memories with similar arguments; get_memory/get_document and delete_memory/discard_memory are also distinguishable mainly by ID prefix or inbox state.
The names are consistently lowercase snake_case and verb-first, which makes the set fairly predictable. Minor deviations include search_by_date breaking the verb_noun pattern, get_inbox/get_all_tags acting as list operations while list_memories uses 'list', and upsert_memory being an unusual verb.
At 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a memory/document vault: create, upsert, update, retrieve, list, semantic and date search, tags, and inbox workflow are all represented without excessive granularity or redundant filler.
The toolset covers the core memory lifecycle well, including save, upsert, update, get, search, list, delete, and inbox approval/discard. Minor gaps remain: update_memory only accepts mem_ IDs, so documents found via search have no document-specific update path, and workspace management is only handled through optional name strings.