Count the total stored memories for a specific agent and user pair, enabling agents to assess memory accumulation and manage storage.
Return the total number of stored memories for an agent/user pair.
Args:
agent_id: Agent identifier.
user_id: User identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It implies a read operation but omits details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior for missing agent/user pairs.
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 sentences plus Args list, front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant information.
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 simple count tool with output schema, description covers core purpose. Could mention return format, but output schema likely handles that.
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 has 0% description coverage; description adds 'Agent identifier' and 'User identifier', clarifying the purpose beyond schema titles. Minimal but adequate.
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 clearly states verb 'Return', resource 'total number of stored memories', and scope 'for an agent/user pair'. Distinct from sibling tools (delete, search, store).
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?
No guidance on when to use count_memories versus alternatives like search_memories or store_memory. Lacks context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ayushagrawal288/memex'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server