Retrieve project memory entries from a directory, listing published, pending, and superseded items with source details. Supports pagination via limit and cursor.
查看项目已发布、待处理及已被替代的记忆和来源。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| directory | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool shows entries in three states (published, pending, superseded), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior (cursor/limit), ordering, or whether it returns sources alongside memories in a combined format.
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?
A single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It's efficient and doesn't waste words, though it could add a brief note about pagination without becoming verbose.
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?
For a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential purpose but omits pagination behavior and return format. The sibling context (memory_publish, memory_retract, memory_reject) helps situate it, but an agent would still need to infer how cursor/limit work.
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. It explains the directory parameter's role implicitly (viewing project memories) but doesn't explain limit/cursor semantics. The description adds some context about what the directory contains but leaves pagination parameters undocumented.
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 states a specific verb ('查看' = view/list) and resource ('记忆和来源' = memories and sources) with a scope qualifier ('已发布、待处理及已被替代' = published, pending, and superseded). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memory_publish or memory_retract by focusing on viewing entries in those states, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
The description implies this is a read-only listing tool for memory entries in specific states, which helps an agent know when to use it (when needing to see published/pending/superseded memories). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like memory_recall or memory_preview for other viewing needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.