List saved repository memories, applying optional type and status filters to retrieve relevant project context, decisions, and corrections.
List repository memories with optional type and status filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | active | |
| memory_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists memories and supports filtering, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention defaults, pagination, or any side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond what the schema already shows.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action upfront and then mentions the optional filters.
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?
Given the tool has three parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and several related sibling tools, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize correct usage. It does not distinguish this tool from recall_memory, nor does it clarify what values are acceptable for status or memory_type. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still leaves important gaps.
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 0% parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'type' and 'status' as filters but does not explain valid values or the meaning of these parameters, and it omits the 'limit' parameter entirely. This leaves agents without necessary semantic context for correct invocation.
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 'List' with a clear resource 'repository memories,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_memory and recall_memory. It also notes optional filters, clarifying the scope of the operation.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recall_memory or list_project_rules. It does not mention any scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.