list_projectsLists all projects with stored memories, including memory counts and creation dates, so you can find the exact project name to use with other tools.
List every project that has memories, with how many each holds and when it was created. Use it to discover the exact project name to pass to the other tools, or to see what this memory server knows about. Takes no arguments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of the result (per-project memory counts and creation timestamps), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or behavior when no projects exist. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the routing guidance. Nothing is redundant — even "takes no arguments" is cheap and prevents a schema lookup.
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?
A zero-param list tool with no output schema; the description compensates by naming the return fields (project name, memory count, creation date). Nothing else is needed to call it correctly.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly confirms "Takes no arguments," consistent with the empty schema. There is no additional parameter nuance to convey.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List every project that has memories") and adds what the result carries (memory count, creation time). This clearly separates it from save_memory/search_memory/memory_timeline, which operate on memories rather than enumerating projects.
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 frames the use case: discover the exact project name to pass to other tools, or see what the server knows. Alternatives are referenced generically ("the other tools") but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it — for a no-arg discovery tool that omission is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.