List shared memory entries to review stored agent knowledge, optionally filtered by agent ID or tag to narrow results.
List shared memory entries, optionally filtered by agent or tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| agent_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.63Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about pagination behavior for the limit default of 20, ordering, or what happens when no filters are given — all relevant for a list tool in a shared-memory namespace.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and three parameters including an undocumented limit, the definition leaves too much unstated for an agent to call it confidently.
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% and there are three parameters, yet the description only gestures at two of them ('agent', 'tag') without adding format or semantics, and never mentions 'limit' or its default. The description does not compensate for the documentation gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List shared memory entries') with the filterable dimensions named, so the operation is immediately clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling shared_memory_search, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone which of the two to pick.
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?
'optionally filtered by agent or tag' implies the browsing use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer shared_memory_search or shared_memory_stats instead. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.