Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MemAI

MemAI

by Filipe-Soares-de-Almeida
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all projects in the current home and show which one is active, so agents can see where memory reads and writes will land. Use offset to page through results.

Instructions

The projects in this home, and which one every call here reads and writes.

A project is one SQLite file with its own memories, domains, relations and diagrams. The active one is switched in the admin dashboard, and a running server follows on its next call -- so every write's result names the project it landed in, and pulse() names the one it read. Each entry carries name, memories (the active rows) and active. Names are matched without regard to case wherever a tool takes one.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNowhere the page starts; `next_offset`, when present, starts the next.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.16.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "where the page starts; `next_offset`, when present, starts the next.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"list_projectsArguments"
  2. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuine behavior: the active project is switched externally in the admin dashboard and a running server follows on its next call, and writes/pulse name the project they touched. It also discloses the entry shape (`name`, `memories`, `active`), which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the passage is discursive and includes material that doesn't apply to this tool — the case-insensitive name matching note is irrelevant here since list_projects takes no project-name parameter, and the SQLite-file explanation is tangential. Several sentences do not earn their place for a one-parameter list call.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the returned entry fields and the meaning of `active`. The one gap is that pagination (offset/next_offset) is never mentioned in prose, though the schema covers it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `offset` parameter is already documented in the schema (including the `next_offset` continuation note). The description adds nothing about pagination, so the schema does the entire job. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly identifies the resource (the projects in this home) and its central purpose (showing which project every call reads/writes), and explains what a project actually is. It stops short of a verb-led statement like 'list,' but no sibling tool enumerates projects, so an agent can still place it correctly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies the use case (discovering the active project and the available projects) but never states explicitly when to call this versus alternatives such as list_domains, nor any exclusions. The relevance of the active project is explained, which is useful contextual guidance, but usage is left to inference.

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