Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mnemoverse Memory

Mnemoverse Memory

by mnemoverse
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

memory_list_rooms

Read-onlyIdempotent

List shared memory rooms you own or have joined, showing each room's domain for reads and permitted writes so you can reopen prior collaborations in a new session.

Instructions

List the shared memory rooms you can use — the ones you OWN plus the ones you've JOINED — each with the address to pass as domain on memory_read, and on memory_write too where your membership scope is read_write; a read-only membership has that write refused. Use this to RE-FIND a room in a new session (e.g. 'what rooms do I have?', 'resume the room with my teammate') instead of having to create or re-join it.

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_list_rooms"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roomsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.15.3
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedOutput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "rooms": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "address": {
+            "description": "Domain address (xroom:<id>); pass as `domain` on read/write.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "archived": {
+            "description": "True if archived (owned rooms only).",
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "description": "The room name.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "role": {
+            "description": "'owner' or 'member'.",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "room_id": {
+            "description": "The room's id (room_...).",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "scope": {
+            "description": "'read' or 'read_write'.",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "room_id",
+          "address",
+          "role",
+          "archived"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "rooms"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Addedv0.7.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already supply readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real behavioral context: the returned address is the value to pass as `domain` on memory_read and memory_write, and write is refused for read-only memberships. That permission nuance is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded and dense with useful content, but the middle clause nesting the `domain` usage for two other tools inside a dash-heavy sentence makes it harder to parse than a two-sentence split would be. Still, essentially every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps: usage scenario, cross-tool handoff via `domain`, and membership-based write refusal. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially), so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of `domain` belongs to sibling tools, not this one, so there is no additional parameter meaning to add here.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('List the shared memory rooms') with scope made explicit: rooms you OWN plus rooms you've JOINED. It is unambiguously distinguishable from siblings memory_create_room and memory_join_room, which the description implicitly contrasts against.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

States the triggering scenario ('RE-FIND a room in a new session') with concrete user phrasings, and explicitly says to use this instead of creating or re-joining. Both the when and the not-this alternatives are named.

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