Retrieve personal assistant memories, optionally filtered by memory type, to recall user preferences and past interactions across sessions.
List personal assistant memories, optionally filtered by the six-model memory type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| memory_type | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a listing operation and that filtering is optional, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination semantics behind the limit parameter, what values the six memory types take, or behavior on invalid input. 'List' is the only implicit safety signal.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action and scope with no filler. It could be improved by replacing the opaque 'six-model memory type' phrasing, but structurally it is tight and efficient.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but an agent wanting to filter must know the six memory type values, which appear nowhere. Subject is undefined, limit's behavioral meaning is unstated, and sibling routing is absent. An unfiltered call works since all parameters are optional, but the documented filter path is effectively unusable.
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 compensate for all three parameters. It only addresses memory_type, and only vaguely ('optionally filtered by the six-model memory type') without enumerating the six values. The limit and subject parameters receive zero meaning anywhere, leaving subject entirely undefined.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('List personal assistant memories') and the 'personal' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling memory_list. The filter capability is also mentioned. However, 'the six-model memory type' is unexplained jargon that an agent cannot resolve without external knowledge, and the description doesn't explicitly contrast it with memory_list.
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 on when to use this tool versus the 39 siblings, particularly closely related ones like memory_list, memory_search, memory_recall, or memory_personal_review. The 'personal' qualifier is the only implicit differentiator, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.