Skip to main content
Glama

must_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists open items in a scope by category counts or headers, surfaces pinned mandatory-reading memories, and flags overdue checkpoints; read every pin before acting.

Instructions

What is still open in a scope: counts per category, or one category's headers.

Without type: {"categories": [{"type", "count"}, ...]} for task, anti_pattern, handoff, note and diagram, in that order, leaving out the empty ones, plus "pinned" -- the same shape, counting the memories a person pinned as mandatory reading -- when any pin is in scope. A pinned memory still counts in its category. With type: {"type", "total", "items", "next_offset"} -- one page of headers (uid, title, domain, tags, est_tokens; a task adds progress {done, total} and doing, its items in progress as {id, n}), newest first, a task by its latest item update. Open a header with get_memory(uid). A page holds at most limit headers and ends early at the size budget; next_offset is absent on the last page.

Every pin listed is read with get_memory(uid) before acting, none skipped.

Pending means: a task that is open; an active anti_pattern, handoff or note that is not contradicted; an active diagram.

overdue, present only when non-empty, lists the checkpoints in scope that stayed open past the age limit, with an alert to relay to the user: memai refuses new writes under each until it is settled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNotask, anti_pattern, handoff, note or diagram; any other type is an error. Empty returns the counts.
limitNoheaders per page, 1 to 50.
domainNocovers its subdomains and what is cross-listed there; empty is the whole project. A pin is in scope when it is global, or when the memory's domain or one of its also paths is the asked domain or above it; the whole project counts global pins only.
offsetNowhere the page of headers starts.
pinnedNotrue narrows the page to the pins of that type, and also accepts checkpoint and reasoning.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the exact semantics of 'pending', that 'overdue' appears only when non-empty and carries an alert to relay, and critically that 'memai refuses new writes under each until it is settled' — a side effect an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the primary return shape, then the typed variant, then edge cases (pending, overdue). It is dense and long, but the telegraphic JSON-shape notation keeps it information-dense rather than padded; only a small amount of the later prose could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns — and it does so field by field (categories, count, type, total, items, next_offset, pinned, overdue). For a zero-required-parameter query tool, nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret results is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the empty-type behavior and the domain/pin scoping rules, but does not add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 states a specific scope and resource: 'What is still open in a scope: counts per category, or one category's headers', and lays out the exact response shapes for both modes. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or distinguishes itself from plausible siblings like list_recent, list_by_domain, timeline or search, so an agent must infer the boundary on its own.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Open a header with get_memory(uid)' gives the follow-up step, and 'Every pin listed is read with get_memory(uid) before acting' prescribes behavior. However there is no explicit when-to-use-this vs when-to-use list_recent/search/recall, and no exclusion criteria.

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