agent-memory-mcp

memory_export

Read-onlyIdempotent

Export stored memories as JSON or Markdown, filtering by tags, time, or importance for backup and analysis.

Instructions

Return schemaVersion:1 JSON or lossless Markdown in data. Apply filters to limit size. Does not write arbitrary files.

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_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`tag`	No
`tags`	No
`type`	No
`format`	No	json
`source`	No
`project`	No
`namespace`	No
`all_projects`	No
`created_after`	No
`created_before`	No
`importance_min`	No
`include_deleted`	No
`include_expired`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds a useful note that it does not write arbitrary files, reinforcing non-destructive behavior, but does not cover other potential side-effects or limitations.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant wording. Information is efficiently presented.

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?

The description lacks critical context: it does not explain the meaning of the many optional filters, the structure of the returned data beyond format, or the relationship to the memory system. Given the large parameter set and no output schema, this is insufficient for correct use.

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?

The description gives no explanation of any of the 13 parameters. It only generically says 'Apply filters', which does not help map to specific fields like tag, source, or created_after. With zero schema coverage and no parameter descriptions, the agent has virtually no guidance.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and a resource (JSON or Markdown data), distinguishing it as an export tool. However, the phrase 'in data' is vague and the description does not explicitly name the underlying memory store, though it is clear from 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?

Mentions applying filters to limit size but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_list or memory_search. No explicit conditions or exclusions are given.

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