memory_list_namespacesLists available memory namespaces and record counts, enabling agents to inspect stored data and choose where to recall or save information.
List namespaces and record counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that per-namespace record counts come back, which is useful context but likely also expressed in the output schema, and it says nothing about ordering or scale.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Six words, front-loaded with the verb and the resource, with the extra payload ('record counts') appended. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read with an output schema and full annotations, this covers nearly everything an agent needs. The only minor gap is not clarifying whether an empty result or pagination applies, which the output schema presumably clarifies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level meaning is missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List namespaces') and adds that record counts are returned, which no sibling tool does. It is adequately distinguishable from siblings like memory_search or memory_status, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to call this versus memory_status, memory_search, or memory_get. The discovery use case is only implied by the word 'List', and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.