Memory Journal MCP Server

List Journal Backups

list_backups

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all available backup files with their sizes and creation dates to help you identify and restore the right project memory snapshot.

Instructions

List all available backup files with their sizes and creation dates

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`use_test_db`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Error code (e.g. VALIDATION_ERROR, INTERNAL_ERROR)
`hint`	No
`error`	No	Human-readable error message
`total`	No
`backups`	No
`details`	No	Additional error context
`success`	No
`category`	No	Error category (validation, query, connection, internal)
`suggestion`	No	Suggested fix for the error
`recoverable`	No	Whether the error is recoverable
`backupsDirectory`	No
`aggregated_errors`	No	Details of individual errors in a multi-step operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv9.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructive=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the visible fields (sizes, creation dates) but leaves scope unaddressed — no mention of whether "all" spans projects/teams or includes test-database backups, which matters given the undocumented use_test_db flag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but nothing in it is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. What remains missing is the parameter definition and the scope of "all backups" — the two things an agent actually needs before calling a list tool in an environment with a parallel team_* variant.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter use_test_db carries no description in either the schema or the description text. Its meaning (query the test database instead of production?) has to be guessed, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("List all available backup files") plus the returned attributes, which is unambiguous about what the operation does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling team_list_backups or from cleanup_backups/restore_backup, which operate on the same resource.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus team_list_backups, cleanup_backups, or restore_backup, and no prerequisites stated. The reader must infer from the name alone which of the backup-related siblings is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server