Retrieve a compact index of recent observations with ID, type, title, importance, age, and citation URI to quickly assess project activity.
Layer 1: compact index of recent observations — ID, type, title, importance, age, citation URI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (default 30). | |
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). | |
| type_filter | No | Filter by observation type (optional). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful fact that the return is a compact field subset (ID, type, title, importance, age, citation URI), but says nothing about defaults, ordering, or pagination behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that names the tool's scope before enumerating return fields. No wasted words, though the cryptic 'Layer 1:' prefix is unexplained and mildly noise.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which compensates somewhat. But it omits the recency window, ordering, and how it relates to sibling memory tools, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent choosing among memory_index, memory_search, and memory_get.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (limit, project, type_filter) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning such as valid type_filter values or project path syntax, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('compact index of recent observations') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows this is a listing tool. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like memory_search or memory_get, and the unexplained 'Layer 1' label adds no routing value.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated relationship to memory_search, memory_get, or memory_admin, and no exclusions. The word 'recent' implies a recency scope, but the agent must infer when this is preferable to the other memory tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.