Skip to main content
Glama
hacksurvivor

pathmark

by hacksurvivor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List conclusions

list_conclusions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve saved durable conclusions by filtering with tags, namespace, and limit. Organize your memory efficiently.

Instructions

List saved durable conclusions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
limitNo
namespaceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / namespace
      Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the 'durable' qualifier, which is useful but does not explain return format, pagination, or any side effects. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single sentence with zero unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and no redundancy exists.

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 list operation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not mention filtering options, default limits, or how results are ordered, leaving an agent to guess or infer critical details.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the tags, limit, or namespace parameters. The agent is left without any guidance on what these parameters do, how they affect the query, or their defaults.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('saved durable conclusions'), distinguishing it from pending conclusions implicitly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_pending_conclusions or clarify what 'durable' means in this context.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pending_conclusions. The description does not mention any conditions or contexts that would select this tool over its siblings.

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