Lists memory cortices with their note counts, or shows all notes in a selected cortex to inspect stored knowledge.
List cortices with their note counts, or the notes of one cortex.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cortex | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that cortices are returned with note counts and that one cortex returns notes, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, or failure behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The primary operation and conditional variant are both stated immediately.
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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the two core modes and what is returned at a high level. It remains incomplete regarding return structure, ordering, pagination, and parameter details.
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%, so the description must clarify the optional cortex parameter. It does explain the conditional behavior: one cortex means notes of that cortex, otherwise list cortices with counts. However, it does not specify the parameter name, format, matching rules, or behavior for invalid values.
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?
Uses a specific verb (“List”) and names the resources (“cortices” and “notes”), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like brain_search or brain_read, so a 4 rather than 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 two basic modes—omit cortex to list cortices, provide cortex to list notes—but does not say when to use this tool instead of brain_search, brain_read, or other siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.