mcp-memory-graph

memory_manifest

Read-only

Retrieve a lightweight index of all memories including titles, types, tags, and scores. Use this to discover existing knowledge before running expensive searches.

Instructions

Get a lightweight index of all memories — titles, types, tags, and scores without content. Use this to discover what knowledge exists before running expensive searches.

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_manifest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	Memory scope for isolation
`namespace`	No	Namespace within scope (e.g., project name, team name)
`department`	No	Department (e.g., legal, engineering, hr, sales, finance)
`document_type`	No	Type of document (e.g., contract, policy, code, incident, decision)
`limit`	No	Maximum entries to return (default 500)
`offset`	No	Skip this many entries for pagination

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.6.4Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds that no content is returned, reinforcing non-destructive behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. No extraneous information, highly concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Description lacks details on return structure, pagination behavior, and how parameters like scope/namespace interact. Given 6 parameters and no output schema, more completeness is needed.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds little beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it provides overall context but no parameter-level details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Get a lightweight index of all memories' with specifics (titles, types, tags, scores) and contrasts with expensive searches, distinguishing it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly recommends using this tool before expensive searches, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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

Deploy Server