List memories that were soft-deleted or automatically archived due to low importance or recency. Set a limit to control how many are returned.
List archived memories.
ACTION GUIDE — when to use:
Use to view memories that have been soft-deleted or automatically archived due to low importance/recency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.0Output schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +trueOutput schema / propertiesRemoved value: -{
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
-}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "result"
-]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"archived_memoriesOutput"New value: +"archived_memoriesDictOutput"v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'List archived memories', implying a read-only operation, but annotations set `readOnlyHint` to `false`, suggesting potential side effects. This contradiction is severe. The description provides no additional behavioral details (e.g., auth requirements, state changes) beyond the basic listing, so transparency is critically lacking.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two clear sentences with an explicit action guide. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words or repetitions.
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?
The description explains what 'archived' means and the intended use case, and an output schema exists. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether listing alters state) and does not mention related tools like `restore_memory`. This makes it adequate but not fully complete.
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?
The input schema has a single optional parameter `limit` with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter or its purpose, failing to add meaning beyond the raw schema. Given the simplicity of the parameter, a score of 2 reflects the minimal 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'archived memories'. It further differentiates from siblings like 'list_memories' by explaining that this tool shows soft-deleted or automatically archived memories, making the purpose specific and distinct.
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 includes an explicit 'ACTION GUIDE — when to use' section that specifies the context (soft-deleted or low-importance/recency memories). While it does not explicitly list when not to use or mention alternatives, the guidance is clear and sufficient for the intended scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.