Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
openmem-mcp

openmem-mcp

by bcmyguest
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

List knowledge pages

memory_pages_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists a bank's knowledge pages, returning page IDs, names, and folders without body content.

Instructions

List a bank's knowledge pages (ids, names, folders; no bodies). Hindsight only.

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_pages_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bankNoHindsight bank (use memory_project_scope for the project bank; default openmem-mcp)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it specifies the return shape (ids, names, folders) and explicitly excludes bodies, which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs to avoid misusing this as a content fetch.

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 terse clauses with zero waste; the resource and the return contents are front-loaded before the scoping note. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description steps in to describe the returned fields, which is the right coverage. The gaps are minor: 'Hindsight only' is left unexplained and there is no note on pagination or result size for a list operation across all pages in a bank.

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% and the single 'bank' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the pointer to memory_project_scope and the openmem-mcp default. The description says only 'a bank's' and adds no syntax, default, or scoping detail beyond the structured field.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (List) and resource (a bank's knowledge pages) and enumerates what comes back (ids, names, folders; no bodies), which implicitly separates it from memory_pages_read and memory_pages_search. It stops short of naming those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Hindsight only' is a scope restriction that hints at when the tool applies, and 'no bodies' implies you need memory_pages_read for content. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when/when-not guidance is given, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools