List explicit memory relations with optional filters by relation, source, target, or kind. Retrieve linked memories to trace connections between entities stored in long-term memory.
List explicit memory relations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relation | No | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| target_id | No | ||
| source_kind | No | ||
| target_kind | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. 'List explicit memory relations' communicates a read-only operation and introduces the concept of 'explicit' relations, but it does not explain filtering behavior, ordering, pagination, or what happens when no filters are supplied.
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 or redundant wording. It is appropriately brief for stating the high-level purpose, though it sacrifices useful detail that would make it more helpful.
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 five optional parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, the one-line description is not sufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the description still omits essential information about what 'explicit memory relations' means and how the optional parameters affect the listing.
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 does not mention any of the five parameters or how they influence the results. The agent must infer from parameter names alone that relation, source_id, target_id, source_kind, and target_kind act as filters, which the description fails to clarify.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('explicit memory relations'), which makes the core purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like memory_list or memory_link_add, so differentiation relies on the tool name and resource wording rather than the description itself.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus memory_link_add, memory_list, or memory_search. There are no alternative suggestions, exclusions, or context clues beyond the bare act of listing relations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.