mcp-vault-reader

memory_list

List notes saved in the persistent memory vault, filtering by folder or tag to retrieve relevant stored context.

Instructions

Lists notes stored in the persistent memory vault, with optional filters for folders and tags.

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_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No	Optional tag filter (without '#').
`limit`	No	Maximum notes to return.
`folder`	No	Optional subfolder to filter (e.g., 'projects/', 'preferences/').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what fields are returned, whether results are sorted, or how filters interact. The agent has no indication of the tool's safety or output format.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and mentions optional filters, earning its place efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the response looks like and any behavioral nuances. It fails to mention return format, default limits, or how folder/tag filters combine. Given the presence of several similar sibling tools, this minimal description leaves important gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description only reiterates that filters exist for folders and tags, adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema. It does not discuss the limit parameter or parameter combinations, so the baseline of 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 states the tool lists notes from the persistent memory vault and mentions optional folder/tag filters. It names a specific verb and resource, making its function clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like memory_search or vault_list_notes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as memory_search or vault_list_notes. There is no mention of use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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

Deploy Server