Retrieve a complete live catalog of topics, areas, or people from your curated memories. Select a scope to get an unfiltered list of all items in that category.
Return one complete live topics, areas, or people Route Catalog. No search, matching, pagination, Facts, or write versions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / properties / scopeAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "topics",
+ "areas",
+ "people"
+ ],
+ "title": "Scope",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "scope"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive behavior. The description adds useful traits beyond annotations: it returns a 'complete' and 'live' snapshot, and explicitly rules out search, matching, pagination, Facts, and write variants. This is meaningful addition, though it could disclose response size or performance behavior in more detail.
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?
The description is one sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the exclusions packed into a short, scannable list. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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 an output schema present and a single enum parameter, the description covers the key operational constraints: complete return, live data, no pagination/search/write behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not explaining what a 'Route Catalog' is or what 'Facts' means, but that does not block a competent agent from invoking list correctly.
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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The description does repeat the three scope choices from the enum and relates them to the Route Catalog, but it adds little semantic detail beyond the enum values themselves. For a single required enum parameter this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description uses a specific verb (Return) and resource (topics, areas, or people Route Catalog), and the scope enum makes the target resource concrete. It does not, however, name the sibling 'read' tool or explain the difference between listing the full catalog and reading a single entry, so sibling differentiation is only partial.
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?
The phrase 'No search, matching, pagination, Facts, or write versions' gives clear when-not-to-use guidance and implies that other sibling tools handle those operations. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so an agent must infer which sibling to switch to for search or single-item reads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.