ai-dememory

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Manual Acceptance Packet Archive Status

memory.acceptance_packet_archive_status

Read-only

List acceptance packet archives and their status without file writes or evidence recording. Specify archive directory, limit, and offset for paginated results.

Instructions

List generated manual acceptance packet archives without writing files or recording evidence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "memory.acceptance_packet_archive_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`archive_dir`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`archives`	Yes
`has_more`	Yes
`next_offset`	Yes
`total_count`	Yes
`archive_root`	Yes
`writes_files`	Yes
`mutates_system`	Yes
`returned_count`	Yes
`records_evidence`	Yes
`writes_acceptance_records`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds transparency by stating 'without writing files or recording evidence', clarifying side-effect-free behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, immediately front-loading the core purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks guidance on parameter usage and result expectations, which are not fully covered by the schema alone.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters (limit, offset, archive_dir), failing to add meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a clear verb 'List' and specifies the resource 'generated manual acceptance packet archives', effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that may manage or modify packets.

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?

The description implies a read-only usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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

Deploy Server