Retrieve a complete memory profile grouped by topics, with counts by type and topic. Use when the user asks what you remember about them.
Show the full memory profile grouped by topics, with counts by type and topic. Use when the user asks "what do you remember about me?".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The 'Show' verb implies a read-only, presentational operationositories, and the description adds what output is included. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, performance considerations, or output limits.
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?
Two terse sentences: the first describes behavior and output content, the second gives a direct trigger. There is no filler, repetition, or restatement 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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives the essential information: what the profile contains, how it is grouped, and when to use it. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact output format, but nothing critical is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the syntax and meaning of arguments are a non-issue. The empty schema already provides complete structural coverage, and the description adds no unnecessary param explanation; baseline 4 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?
Description states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('full memory profile'), adding grouping by topics and counts by type and topic. It clearly differentiates from siblings like memory_search (targeted lookup) and memory_status by emphasizing the full, topic-grouped profile.
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?
Explicitly maps to the user question 'what do you remember about me?', giving an agent a clear trigger condition. It does not list when-not-to-use it or name sibling alternatives explicitly, so routing to alternatives remains slightly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.