Retrieve all general and project-specific topics from your Memlane library to organize saved links and notes.
List Memlane topics (general and project-scoped)
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": "list_topics"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states a read operation (listing), but does not mention whether the result is paginated, ordered, or limited. For a list tool with no parameters, this lack of detail on cardinality or performance implications is a gap.
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 sentence that is clear and to the point. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool, though it could benefit from slightly more detail on the output.
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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what constitutes a topic or how the results are structured, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent.
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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It implicitly confirms that no parameters are needed to list all topics, which is sufficient.
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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (Membrane topics) with a specific scope (general and project-scoped). It effectively communicates the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_topic_to_save, which are clearly different actions.
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 this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or suggest any prerequisites or context for choosing this tool over others like list_saves or list_projects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.