Filter and browse memories by type, tags, or project with pagination. Use it to review all entries in a category instead of relying on semantic search.
Browse memories by type, tags, or project with pagination. Use this when you need to review all memories in a category rather than searching by meaning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that this is a browsing/pagination operation and that it filters by category rather than semantic meaning, but it does not mention sorting, return format, or how filters combine. This is acceptable for a low-risk list tool but not comprehensive.
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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the key distinguishing use case are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 five parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this description leaves important gaps. An agent is not told what the response looks like, how filters interact, or what valid type values are. The description establishes purpose but not enough operational context for fully correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions type, tags, project, and pagination, but does not explain the format or behavior of the tags array, possible type values, how filters combine, or the meaning of limit and offset beyond saying 'pagination.' The parameter semantics are therefore only partially clarified.
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 ('Browse') with a clear resource ('memories') and identifies the filtering dimensions: type, tags, and project. It also explicitly contrasts itself with searching by meaning, which distinguishes it from the sibling memory_search tool.
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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'when you need to review all memories in a category rather than searching by meaning.' It names the alternative behavior but does not explicitly name memory_search as the alternative, so it falls just short of the strongest guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.