Filter memories by status (valid, stale, missing, all) and optionally verify them to identify outdated repository information.
List memories by status.
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": "vrm_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | all | |
| verify | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides none: no mention of side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, pagination behavior, or the effect of the 'verify' parameter. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.
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 a single short sentence, which is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified, omitting essential information about parameters and behavior. It reads as a vague label rather than a concise, complete description.
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 the tool has 3 parameters (limit, status, verify), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of statuses, the behavior of 'verify', or default limits. An AI agent would lack enough context to invoke the tool accurately.
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 for the lack of parameter explanations. It only mentions 'status' without explaining its enum values (all, valid, stale, missing) or the purpose of 'limit' and 'verify'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema field names.
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 'List memories by status' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (memories), with status as a filter. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like vrm_retrieve (which likely fetches a single memory) and vrm_search (which likely searches by content), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts in which listing by status is appropriate, nor does it contrast with vrm_search or vrm_retrieve. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.