Preference Memory MCP

by efficjump

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

memory_review

Read-onlyIdempotent

List pending memories for review with cursor-based pagination to process user preference corrections.

Instructions

List reviewable memories with cursor-based pagination.

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_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`cursor`	No
`status`	No	pending

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`memories`	No
`next_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. Description adds cursor-based pagination. No contradictions; sufficient value beyond annotations.

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?

Single concise sentence at the beginning conveying essential info. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a paginated listing tool with cursor, status filter, and output schema, description is too sparse. Missing context like cursor handling, meaning of 'reviewable', default status filtering, and pagination behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate, but description does not explain any parameter (limit, cursor, status). Parameter names are partially self-explanatory but missing details like default for status and cursor format.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states verb (list), resource (reviewable memories), and key behavior (cursor-based pagination). Differentiates from siblings like memory_get and memory_recall by specifying 'reviewable'.

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?

Implies when to use via 'reviewable' but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server