List recent facts from an agent's long-term memory, optionally filtered by category, to recall information across sessions and aid traceable corrections.
List recent facts, optionally filtered by category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| category | 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, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-style listing operation and 'recent' implies recency ordering, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, how 'recent' is defined, or how the limit interacts with ordering. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core operation and the optional filter in minimal words.
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?
Although an output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description leaves important context unstated: category semantics, default/pagination behavior, and especially how this list differs from memory_search, memory_recall, and the other memory_* list tools. For a tool with no annotations, this is a notable completeness gap.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'category' filters the listed facts, but it never explains 'limit' beyond the schema title/default and does not specify category value formatting. The compensation is incomplete for a low-coverage schema.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), resource ('facts'), and scope ('recent'), and specifies an optional category filter. This is clear but it does not explicitly distinguish memory_list from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_recall, so no point for active differentiation.
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 provided about when to use memory_list versus alternatives such as memory_search, memory_recall, or memory_personal_list. The description states only what the tool does, not the context in which it is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.