Skip to main content
Glama
Cloto-dev

CPersona

Official
by Cloto-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_memories

Read-only

Retrieve recent agent memories for dashboard display, newest-first, with optional agent and project filters and a configurable result limit.

Instructions

List recent memories for an agent (for dashboard display). bug-385: limit is clamped to 500 rows. When the caller asked for more and rows past the cap exist, the response carries budget_rows (the cap), so a capped listing can be told from one that reached the end of the data — reach the rest through export_memories or a narrower filter, not a larger limit. bug-255: within that cap the response holds a 1,000,000-character content budget. Rows are returned newest-first and none is dropped by the budget; once it is spent, later rows LONGER than the preview cap (CPERSONA_RECALL_PREVIEW_CHARS, default 500) degrade to a pure prefix with content_truncated/content_len and a ref that get_contents expands under the row's own agent_id (in an all-agents listing, pair the ref with the row's agent_id field). budget_chars appears iff at least one row was degraded. The effective ceiling is the budget plus one whole row plus the degraded rows' prefixes, so it scales with the preview cap; preview cap 0 disables trimming and the budget with it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax memories to return
agent_idNoAgent identifier (empty for all agents)
project_idNov2.4.17 γ filter. Omit → no filter; '' → global pool only; 'X' → 'X' ∪ global pool. v2.5.1: pass '@auto' to resolve this agent's default from the server's operating context (the resolution is echoed as resolved_project_id; an unmapped agent yields operating_context_warning). bug-186: resolution requires a configured operating context. With none — the default, and equally the outcome of a sidecar that fails to parse — the sentinel is NOT resolved: it is stored and filtered as the literal project_id '@auto', resolved_project_id echoes '@auto', and no warning is raised. Read resolved_project_id before relying on the resolution.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.5.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
      Previous value: -"v2.4.17 γ filter. Omit → no filter; '' → global pool only; 'X' → 'X' ∪ global pool."New value: +"v2.4.17 γ filter. Omit → no filter; '' → global pool only; 'X' → 'X' ∪ global pool. v2.5.1: pass '@auto' to resolve this agent's default from the server's operating context (the resolution is echoed as resolved_project_id; an unmapped agent yields operating_context_warning). bug-186: resolution requires a configured operating context. With none — the default, and equally the outcome of a sidecar that fails to parse — the sentinel is NOT resolved: it is stored and filtered as the literal project_id '@auto', resolved_project_id echoes '@auto', and no warning is raised. Read resolved_project_id before relying on the resolution."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.34
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "v2.4.17 γ filter. Omit → no filter; '' → global pool only; 'X' → 'X' ∪ global pool.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only readOnlyHint available, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so in depth: a 500-row clamp, a 1,000,000-character content budget, newest-first ordering, no row dropped, prefix degradation of long rows past the preview cap, and the conditions that populate budget_rows/budget_chars. This is far beyond what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense wall of bug-tagged clauses (bug-385, bug-255, resolved_project_id, preview cap) that is hard to scan. Content is largely non-redundant, yet the run-on sentences and inline parentheticals hurt readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the response fields that matter (budget_rows, budget_chars, content_truncated, content_len, ref) and their triggering conditions. An agent has enough to interpret a capped or degraded listing correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `limit` is clamped to 500, and the `ref` must be paired with the row's own `agent_id` in all-agents listings. `project_id` sentinel/resolution behavior is covered by the schema itself, so the description's added value is concentrated on `limit`.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List recent memories for an agent') plus scope hint (dashboard display). It partially differentiates from siblings by routing extra data to export_memories, but does not clearly separate itself from recall/recall_with_context, which also return memories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly warns against raising `limit` past the cap and names alternatives ('reach the rest through export_memories or a narrower filter'). This gives clear when-not and alternative guidance, though it never states when list_memories beats recall for a plain retrieval.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools